36994 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF03

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposal To List the

Contiguous United States Distinct

Population Segment of the Canada

Lynx as a Threatened Species; and the

Captive Population of Canada Lynx

Within the Coterminous United States

(lower 48 States) as Threatened Due to

Similarity of Appearance, With a

Special Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes to list the

contiguous United States population

segment of the Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis) as threatened, pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). This population

segment includes the States of

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,

Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota,

Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New

Hampshire, Vermont, New York,

Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The

contiguous United States population

segment of the Canada lynx is

threatened by human alteration of

forests, low numbers as a result of past

overexploitation, expansion of the range

of competitors (bobcats (Felis rufus) and

coyotes (Canis latrans)), and elevated

levels of human access into lynx habitat.

This rule also lists the captive

population of Canada lynx within the

coterminous United States (lower 48

States) as threatened due to similarity of

appearance with a special rule.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by September

30, 1998. Public hearing locations and

dates are set forth in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office,

100 N. Park Ave., Suite 320, Helena,

Montana 59601. Comments and

materials received will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor,

Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone 406/449–5225;

facsimile 406/449–5339).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public

hearings on this proposal will be held

in the following locations:

Western States

Colorado

Wednesday, July 22, 1998 from 7 p.m.

until 9 p.m. at the Ramada Inn, 124 W.

6th St., Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

This public hearing will be preceded by

an informational open house from 6

p.m. to 7 p.m.

Tuesday, July 28, 1998, from 7 p.m.

until 9 p.m. at the Sheraton Denver

West, 360 Union Boulevard, Lakewood,

Colorado. This public hearing will be

preceded by an informational open

house from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Idaho

Thursday, September 10, 1998, from 2

p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until

8 p.m. at the Coeur d’Alene Inn and

Conference Center, 414 West Appleway

Avenue, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Montana

Tuesday, July 21, 1998, from 2 p.m.

until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m.

at the Colonial Inn Best Western, 2301

Colonial Drive, Helena, Montana.

Wednesday, July 22, 1998, from 2

p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until

8 p.m. at Cavanaugh’s at Kalispell

Center, 20 N. Main, Kalispell, Montana.

Oregon

Tuesday September 15, 1998, from 2

p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until

8 p.m. at Eastern Oregon University,

Hoke University Center, 1410 L Avenue,

Rooms 201–203, LaGrande Oregon.

Washington

Tuesday, September 8, 1998, from 2

p.m. until 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until

8 p.m. at the Cedars Inn, 1 Appleway,

Okanogan, Washington.

Wyoming

Wednesday, August 12, 1998, from 2

p.m until 4 p.m and from 6 p.m until

8 p.m. at the Cody Auditorium, Cody

Club Room, 1234 Beck Avenue, Cody,

Wyoming.

Eastern States

Maine

Tuesday, September 15, 1998 from 7

p.m. until 9 p.m. at the Old Town High

School, 240 Stillwater Ave, Old Town,

Maine.

Great Lakes States

Wisconsin

Tuesday, September 15, 1998 from 7

p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Northern Great

Lakes Center on County Road G near

Hwy 2, west of Ashland, Wisconsin.

This public hearing will be preceded by

an informational open house from 6

p.m. to 7 p.m.

Background

The Canada lynx is a medium-sized

cat with long legs, large, well-furred

paws, long tufts on the ears, and a short,

black-tipped tail (McCord and Cardoza

1982). Adult males average 10 kilograms

(kg) (22 pounds (lb)) in weight and 85

centimeters (cm) (33.5 inches (in)) in

length (head to tail), and females

average 8.5 kg (19 lb) and 82 cm (32 in)

(Quinn and Parker 1987). The lynx’s

long legs and large feet make it highly

adapted to hunting in deep snow.

The bobcat (F. rufus) is a North

American relative of the Canada lynx.

Compared to the lynx, the bobcat has

smaller paws, shorter ear tufts, a more

spotted pelage, and only the top of the

tip of the tail is black. The paws of the

lynx have twice the surface area of those

of the bobcat (Quinn and Parker 1987).

The lynx also differs in its body

proportions in comparison to the

bobcat. Lynx have longer legs, with hind

legs that are longer than the front legs,

giving the lynx a ‘‘stooped’’ appearance

(Quinn and Parker 1987). Bobcats are

largely restricted to habitats where deep

snows do not accumulate (Koehler and

Hornocker 1991). Hybridization

between lynx and bobcat is unknown

(Quinn and Parker 1987).

Classification of the Canada lynx (also

called the North American lynx) has

been subject to revision. The Service, in

accordance with Wilson and Reeder

(1993), recognizes the Canada lynx as L.

canadensis. The Service previously

used the name L. lynx canadensis for

the Canada lynx (Jones et al. 1992; S.

Williams, Texas Tech University, pers.

comm. 1994). Other scientific names

still in use include Felis lynx or F. lynx

canadensis (Jones et al. 1986; Tumlison

1987).

The historical and present North

American range of the Canada lynx

north of the contiguous United States

includes Alaska and that part of Canada

that extends from the Yukon and

Northwest Territories south to the

United States border, and east to New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In the

contiguous United States, the lynx

historically occurred in the Cascade

Range of Washington and Oregon; the

Rocky Mountains from Montana, Idaho,

and Oregon south to Utah and Colorado;

the western Great Lakes region; and the

northeastern United States region from

Maine, south to New York and

Pennsylvania, and east to Massachusetts

(McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and

Parker 1987).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36995

1Note: With respect to the lynx and the analysis

presented in this document, the terms ‘‘resident’’

and ‘‘resident population’’ mean a group or

subgroup of lynx in an area (e.g., Minnesota) or

portion of a larger area (e.g., Great Lakes States) that

is capable of long-term persistence, based on selfsustaining reproduction of young and successful

recruitment of young into the breeding age cohort,

without immigration of lynx from Canada. It is

acknowledged that movements of lynx across the

United States and Canada border did occur and that

this migration was beneficial to the lynx in the

contiguous United States.

In the contiguous United States,

Canada lynx inhabit a mosaic between

boreal forests and subalpine coniferous

forest or northern hardwoods, whereas

Canada lynx habitat in Canada and

Alaska is the boreal forest ecosystem

(Barbour et al. 1980; McCord and

Cardoza 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994;

M. Hunter, University of Maine, pers.

comm. 1994, Colorado Division of

Wildlife 1997).

Canada lynx are specialized predators

that are highly dependent on the

snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) for

food. Snowshoe hare prefer diverse,

early successional forests with stands of

conifers and shrubby understories that

provide for feeding and cover to escape

from predators and protection during

extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982,

Monthey 1986, Koehler and Aubry

1994). Lynx usually concentrate their

foraging activities in areas where hare

activity is high (Koehler et al. 1979;

Parker 1981; Ward and Krebs 1985;

Hash 1990; Weaver 1993; Koehler and

Aubry 1994; D. Winger, U.S. Forest

Service, pers. comm. 1994).

Canada lynx utilize late successional

forests with large woody debris, such as

downed logs and windfalls, to provide

denning sites with security and thermal

cover for kittens (McCord and Cardoza

1982, Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell

1990). In Washington, lynx used

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), spruce

(Picea spp.), and subalpine fir (Abies

lasiocarpa) forests older than 200 years

for denning (Koehler and Brittell 1990).

Based on information from the western

United States, Koehler and Brittell

(1990) concluded sites selected for

denning also must provide for minimal

disturbance by humans and proximity

to foraging habitat (early successional

forests), with denning stands at least 1

hectare (ha) (2.471 acres (ac)) in size.

Lynx require adequate travel cover

(frequently intermediate successional

forest stages) to provide connectivity

within a forest landscape for security,

movement within home ranges, and

access between den sites and foraging

areas (Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler and

Aubry 1994). Such areas also may

provide foraging opportunities.

The size and shape of Canada lynx

home ranges appear related to the

availability of prey and the density of

lynx (Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Documented home ranges vary from 12

to 243 square kilometers (sq km) (5–94

square miles (sq mi)) and larger

(Saunders 1963; Brand et al. 1976; Mech

1980; Parker et al. 1983; Koehler and

Aubry 1994).

The association between lynx and

snowshoe hare is considered a classic

predator-prey relationship (Saunders

1963; van Zyll de Jong 1966; Quinn and

Parker 1987). In much of its North

American range, Canada lynx

populations fluctuate with the

approximate 10-year hare cycle of

abundance (Elton and Nicholson 1942);

as hare populations increase, lynx

populations increase. Generally, it is

believed that when hare populations are

at their cyclic high, they deplete their

food resources and hare populations

decline. This causes lynx populations to

decline as a result of reduced

reproductive success caused by an

inadequate alternate food source (Nellis

et al. 1972; Brand et al. 1976).

Snowshoe hare provide the prey

quality necessary to support high

density lynx populations (Brand and

Keith 1979). Lynx also prey

opportunistically on other small

mammals and birds, particularly when

hare populations decline (Nellis et al.

1972; Brand et al. 1976; McCord and

Cardoza 1982). Apparently, a shift to

alternate food sources may not

compensate for the decrease in hares

consumed (Koehler and Aubry 1994).

The lower quality diet causes sudden

decreases in the productivity of adult

females, and decreased survival of

young, which causes recruitment to the

breeding population to essentially cease

(Nellis et al. 1972; Brand and Keith

1979).

Based primarily on studies in the

western mountains of the contiguous

United States, it appears lynx and

snowshoe hare in more southern

latitudes may not exhibit strong

population cycles (Dolbeer and Clark

1975; Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith

1982; Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler 1990;

Koehler and Aubry 1994). Wolff (1982

in Koehler and Aubry 1994)

hypothesized that the presence of

additional predators and competitors of

hares at lower latitudes accounts for this

pattern. The relative stability of hare

populations in southern latitudes also

may be a result of patchy, suboptimal

habitat (Buehler and Keith 1982,

Koehler 1990, Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Periodic increases in lynx numbers in

the contiguous United States may be

accentuated by dispersal of transient

animals from Canadian populations.

Canada lynx are capable of dispersing

extremely long distances (Mech 1977;

Brainerd 1985; Washington Department

of Wildlife 1993); for example, a male

was documented traveling 616 km (370

mi) (Brainerd 1985). Canada lynx may

disperse long distances from their

normal range to search for food when

snowshoe hare populations decline

(Ward and Krebs 1985; C. Pils, in litt.

1994; Koehler and Aubry 1994). Canada

lynx also may disperse when local lynx

densities are high (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1977; Thiel 1987; J.

Conley, Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, in litt. 1994).

Because lynx occurrence throughout

much of the contiguous United States is

on the southern periphery of the

species’ range, there is speculation that

presence of lynx in the contiguous

United States is solely a consequence of

dispersal from Canada. This has led to

speculation that most of the United

States may never have supported selfsustaining, resident 1 populations over

time (T. Bremicker, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, in litt.

1994; S. Fritts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, in litt. 1994).

Based on the majority view of the

respondents and the best scientific and

commercial data available, the Service

has determined that, historically, the

Canada lynx was a resident species in

16 States in the contiguous United

States, occurring in dispersed

populations at relatively low densities

(Rust 1946; Harger 1965; Nellis 1971;

Henderson 1978; Brocke 1982; Mccord

and Cardoza 1982; Brainerd 1985;

Washington Department of Wildlife

1993; Koehler and Aubry 1994; Kurta

1995; T. Bailey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, in litt. 1994; E. Bangs, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994;

P. Beir, Northern Arizona University, in

litt. 1994; B. Berg, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, pers.

comm. 1994; P. Brussard, University of

Nevada, in litt. 1994; G. Koehler,

Independent Researcher, in litt. 1994;

W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt.

1994; J. Weaver, Independent

Researcher, in litt. 1994). Furthermore,

the historic and current presence of

snowshoe hare populations, the lynx’s

primary food, within the same

ecosystems in the contiguous United

States (Adams 1959; Keener 1971;

Dolbeer and Clark 1975; Buehler and

Keith 1982; Fuller and Heisey 1986;

Monthey 1986; Koehler 1991) supports

the Service’s conclusion.

The Service considers Canada lynx to

have been historically resident within

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New

York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
36996 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Montana, Wyoming, Washington,

Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado.

While evidence suggests historical

lynx numbers in the contiguous United

States increased because of dispersal

from lynx populations in northern

latitudes during the cyclic peaks

(Henderson 1978, Mech 1980), the

Service does not conclude that dispersal

from Canada was required to maintain

the contiguous United States lynx

population as viable. However,

dispersal of Canada lynx into the

contiguous United States may now be

necessary to replenish lynx numbers

because of the current status of lynx in

the contiguous United States. In

addition, the Service concludes that

suitable Canada lynx habitat currently

exists (and existed to a greater extent

historically) in the contiguous United

States (Rust 1946; Harger 1965; Nellis

1971; Washington Department of

Wildlife 1993; Henderson 1978; B.

Giddings, Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1994; S.

Parren, Vermont Department of Fish and

Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; F. Hurley,

in litt. 1994; and K. Staley, White

Mountain National Forest, pers. comm.

1994).

Distribution and Status

Within the contiguous United States,

the lynx population is divided

regionally by ecological barriers

consisting of unsuitable lynx habitat.

These regions are the Northeast, the

Great Lakes, and the Rocky Mountains/

Cascades. To enhance the organization

and clarity of this proposal, the regions

are discussed separately below.

Northeast Region—Historically, lynx

habitat in the Northeast United States

existed in a mostly contiguous block of

forest in the ecotone between boreal and

deciduous forest. This forest has been

described as sub-boreal forest (M.

Hunter, University of Maine, pers.

comm. 1994). Principal tree species

include red spruce (Picea rubens) and

balsam fir (Abies balsamea),

interspersed with northern hardwoods

such as sugar maple (Acer saccharum),

yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis),

and American beech (Fagus

grandifolia). Lynx once occurred from

northern Maine, across northern New

Hampshire and Vermont, to the

Adirondacks in New York (McCord and

Cardoza 1982) and probably occurred

southward along the higher elevations

of the mountain ranges in the region

(Brocke 1982; K. Gustafson, New

Hampshire Department of Fish and

Game, pers. comm. 1994).

Unfortunately, in records compiled

prior to the 1970’s, lynx were often not

distinguished from bobcats (J. Cardoza,

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and

Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994).

Snowshoe hare habitat in the region is

characterized by spruce/fir softwood

forests typical of boreal forests; a

mixture of mature and successional

softwood growth provides cover and

browse for hares (Monthey 1986).

Forested habitat in the region has

increased because of land-use changes

during the past century (Irland 1982,

Litvaitis 1993). In some areas, there may

be a gradual upward trend in the

coniferous component as spruce and fir

regenerate beneath the hardwood

species that had established after largescale logging and burning at the turn of

the century (D. Degraff, U.S. Forest

Service, pers. comm. 1994; F. Hurley,

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries

and Wildlife, in litt. 1994; J. Lanier, New

Hampshire Fish and Game, pers. comm.

1994). Although localized habitat

conditions have improved, reoccupation

of these areas may be impeded by

barriers to lynx immigration, such as

paved roads with high-volume traffic,

nonforested agricultural habitats, or

other intervening areas of unsuitable

habitat.

Although Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, and New York report areas of

suitable lynx habitat and/or prey base,

low numbers of lynx are present only in

Maine and lynx may be extirpated

throughout the remainder of the

Northeast Region (see discussion

below). Much of the potential lynx

habitat in this region is held in private

ownership (Harper et al. 1990).

Maine—In Maine, historical accounts

indicate that, although lynx probably

were never abundant, they were

resident in the State and that numbers

of lynx fluctuated over the past 150

years (Maine Department of Inland

Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. 1997).

Information on population size, trends,

distribution, and factors influencing

these variables are sparse and mostly

anecdotal (F. Hurley, in litt. 1994). Lynx

were bountied in Maine prior to the

closure of hunting and trapping seasons

in 1967.

Suitable habitat and prey to support

lynx are abundant in northwestern

Maine (F. Hurley, in litt. 1994). The

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries

and Wildlife classifies the lynx as a

species of special concern (Matula

1997). The lynx is currently protected

from hunting and trapping.

Although no reliable population

estimates exist, in 1994 it was suggested

that only 200 animals or less occur

statewide (Maine Department of Inland

Fisheries and Wildlife 1994). A

statewide track survey, initiated during

the 1994/1995 winter was conducted for

3 successive years. A total of 4,118, 1-

km (0.62-mi) transects were surveyed.

Lynx were encountered on 54 of the

transects in nine townships, all during

the first year of the survey (Maine

Department of Inland Fisheries and

Wildlife, in litt. 1997). However,

biologists have encountered lynx tracks

in northwestern Maine during the past

three winters while conducting

unrelated fieldwork (Maine Department

of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt.,

1998). The Service concludes a resident

lynx population exists in Maine.

New Hampshire—Lynx were

intermittently bountied in New

Hampshire until 1965. In response to

the apparent declines in lynx

abundance reflected in bounty numbers,

the bounty was repealed and thereafter

the lynx was provided full protection

from legal harvest (Siegler 1971; Silver

1974; Litvaitis et al. 1991). Despite legal

protection, the lynx population did not

increase. Since 1980, the lynx has been

listed as an endangered species by the

New Hampshire Fish and Game

Department. Two years of winter track

surveys did not detect Canada lynx

(Litvaitis et al. 1991). The Service

concludes the Canada lynx is very rare

and likely extirpated from New

Hampshire.

Vermont—In Vermont, historically,

lynx likely occurred at low densities in

the northern part of the State.

Quantitative data on the current

abundance or distribution of lynx are

unavailable. By the mid-1900’s,

Vermont had not had a documented

breeding population of lynx for several

decades (Osgood 1938 in Vermont

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1987).

Since 1972 the lynx has been listed by

the State as endangered. One of the last

verified occurrences of lynx in the State

occurred in 1968, with periodic reports

since then. Suitable habitat exists in the

northeastern section and along

mountain ridges in the State, and

snowshoe hares are present in high

numbers (S. Parren, Vermont

Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers.

comm. 1994; C. Groves, Green Mountain

National Forest, pers. comm. 1994).

Canada lynx is currently considered to

be extirpated in Vermont (S. Parren,

pers. comm. 1998). The Service

concludes the Canada lynx is very rare

and likely extirpated from Vermont.

New York State—Historically, lynx

occurred in most northern regions of

New York, the Adirondack Mountains,

and the Catskill Mountains (K.

Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994), but they

are now considered extirpated (G.

Parsons, New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, in litt.

1994). By the 1880’s, the population was
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36997

apparently approaching extirpation

(Miller 1899 in Brocke 1982). Trapping

and sighting records from the early

1900’s to the present indicate that lynx

occurred only infrequently. The most

recent verified sighting was in 1980 (G.

Parsons, in litt. 1994). An abundant prey

base exists (Brocke 1982), but the

habitat has been highly fragmented.

Extensive road infrastructure and a lack

of early successional coniferous forest in

much of the potential habitat likely

precludes natural lynx reestablishment

in New York (G. Batchellor, New York

State Department of Environmental

Conservation, pers. comm. 1994; G.

Parsons, in litt. 1994).

An effort to reintroduce Canada lynx

into the Adirondack Mountains

occurred from 1988 to 1990 (Brocke et

al. 1990, D. Major, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998), but

success of the reintroduction remains

doubtful. As of 1993, some Canada lynx

were believed still present, but no

reproduction had been documented (K.

Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994). A

collared lynx from the reintroduction

effort was recently found near Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada (M. Amaral, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.

1997). No verified occurrences in New

York have been reported recently;

however, both the State University of

New York at Syracuse and the New

York Department of Environmental

Conservation maintain records of

reported sightings. No further

monitoring is planned. In New York,

lynx are legally classified as a small

game species with a closed season. The

Service concludes the Canada lynx is

very rare and probably extirpated from

New York.

Pennsylvania/Massachusetts—In

Pennsylvania and Massachusetts,

located at the southernmost reaches of

the historical range of the species in the

Northeast United States (Hall and

Kelson 1959), resident animals may

have existed in the coniferous forests of

higher elevations of mountain ranges,

but accurate historical information is

unavailable. Based on the lack of lynx

habitat in these States, historically the

animal was probably uncommon (J.

Belfonti, in litt. 1994). Many individuals

in these States may have dispersed from

more northern regions during cyclic

irruptions of the lynx populations in

Canada (J. Belfonti, The Nature

Conservancy, in litt. 1994). The last

known record of a naturally occurring

Canada lynx in Pennsylvania was in

1923 (J. Belfonti, in litt. 1994), and a

possible record from 1930 exists for

Massachusetts (J. Cardoza, in litt. 1994).

The Service concludes lynx are

extirpated from Pennsylvania and

Massachusetts.

Great Lakes Region—Historically the

lynx was found in the western Great

Lakes States of Michigan, Wisconsin,

and Minnesota. The habitat occupied by

lynx in this region consists primarily of

an ecotone between boreal and mixed

deciduous forest and is a mosaic of

balsam fir, eastern hemlock (Tsuga

canadensis), eastern white pine (Pinus

strobus), jack pine (P. banksiana),

quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides),

birch (Betula spp.), and maple (Acer

spp.) (Barbour et al. 1980). Much of the

lynx habitat in this region is in public

ownership, primarily county, State, or

national forests.

The lynx population in this region

was regularly supplemented by

dispersing lynx from Canada (Harger

1965; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; C. Pils,

in litt. 1994). Historically, Ontario and

Manitoba had very strong, cyclic lynx

populations from which individuals

dispersed to search for food during

periods when the hare populations

crashed or during cyclic highs of lynx

populations. However, trapping harvests

during the period of extremely high pelt

prices in the 1970’s and 1980’s

substantially impacted Canadian lynx

populations. As a result, harvest was

closed temporarily and since has been

closely regulated (I. McKay, Manitoba

Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; M.

Novak, Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources, pers. comm. 1994). Because

of low numbers of lynx, Manitoba

closed its season on lynx harvest from

1995 to 1997 (I. McKay, pers. comm.

1997). Although current habitat

conditions along the Canada/United

States border for lynx are mostly intact

and suitable, dispersal into the Great

Lakes States has been severely limited

because of the reduced lynx population

in Canada (D. Mech, pers comm. 1994;

M. Novak, pers. comm. 1994).

Minnesota—In the past, Minnesota

lynx populations fluctuated markedly

during 10-year cycles and were

influenced by influxes from Canada

(Henderson 1978; Mech 1980; M.

DonCarlos, Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources, in litt. 1994). The

resident lynx population was restricted

to the northeastern area of the State;

however, transients have been found

throughout Minnesota (Gunderson 1978;

Mech 1980).

Until 1965, lynx were bountied in

Minnesota. In 1976, the lynx was

classified as a game species and harvest

seasons were established (M. DonCarlos,

in litt. 1994). Harvest and bounty

records for the State are available since

1930. Based on these records, highs in

the lynx cycle were approximated to

have occurred in 1940, 1952, 1962, and

1973 (Henderson 1978). Henderson

(1978) estimated that during a 47-year

period (1930–1976), the Minnesota lynx

harvest was substantial, ranging from at

least 50 to more than 200 per year

during 29 seasons.

From the mid-1970’s to the late

1980’s, pelt prices were extremely high

in Canada and the United States. Also,

from 1979 to 1980, hare numbers were

at their cyclic peak (M. DonCarlos, in

litt. 1994). Despite these two factors,

lynx harvest remained very low and the

expected lynx peak for the early 1980’s

did not occur (B. Berg, pers. comm.

1994; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994). As a

result, the harvest season was closed

and remains closed today. Although

lynx are currently considered rare (D.

Mech, pers. comm. 1994), available

habitat in northern Minnesota is capable

of maintaining resident lynx

populations (M. DonCarlos, in litt.

1994). Based on recent anecdotal

information, the Service concludes that

a resident population possibly exists in

Minnesota (P. Burke, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998).

Wisconsin—A resident lynx

population likely has not existed in

Wisconsin since 1900 (Thiel 1987). The

presence of lynx in Wisconsin has been

associated with the cyclic lynx

population fluctuations in Canada

(Thiel 1987). A bounty on lynx existed

until 1957. Between 1948 and 1956, 19

lynx were harvested in the State; annual

harvest ranged from zero (1954) to four

(1952) (Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources 1993). Lynx were

placed on the protected species list in

1957 and were classified as State

endangered in 1972 (C. Pils, in litt.

1994). Between 1976 and 1984, 63 lynx

observations were reported, with most

reports from the northwestern area

adjacent to Minnesota; seven lynx were

reported from 1991–1993, two of which

were mortalities (Wydeven 1992;

Wydeven 1993; Wydeven in prep.; C.

Pils, in litt. 1994). There were no

sightings of lynx in 1994 or 1995 and

one possible set of tracks was sighted in

1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in

litt. 1997). Snowshoe hares occur across

northern Wisconsin (Buehler and Keith

1982). Potential lynx habitat in northern

Wisconsin has remained in an early- to

mid-successional mixed coniferous

forest condition since the early 1900’s,

with some limited older growth present

but primarily confined to forested

wetlands (D. Zastrow, Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, pers.

comm. 1998). The lynx has been

reclassified as a State protected species

with a closed season (A. Wydeven,

Wisconsin Department of Natural
36998 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Resources, pers. comm. 1998). Despite

extensive review of historic and current

information regarding the lynx in

Wisconsin, neither Jackson (1961) nor

Thiel (1987) were able to cite any

evidence of breeding subsequent to the

decline of the species in the 1800’s.

There has been a continued decline in

confirmed sightings in recent years and

the Service concludes that, based on

available information, a resident

population of lynx no longer exists in

Wisconsin, although individual animals

likely are present.

Michigan—In Michigan, historical

reports indicate that the Canada lynx

was resident and widespread

throughout the upper and lower

peninsula in the 19th century (Harger

1965). Lynx moved into the upper

peninsula from Wisconsin or crossed

the St. Mary’s River from Ontario (Baker

1983). The limited ability for lynx

dispersal from the upper to the lower

peninsula, in addition to positive

records of lynx in 23 lower peninsula

counties, indicated that in the lower

peninsula, Canada lynx were selfsustaining in the past (Harger 1965;

Baker 1983). Canada lynx were believed

extirpated from Michigan’s lower

peninsula in 1928, and by 1938 they

were considered rare or extinct

throughout the State (Harger 1965). The

lynx persisted on Isle Royale in Lake

Superior into the late 1970’s (Peterson

1977 in Baker 1983). Based on the

numbers and distribution of lynx

reported from 1940 to 1965, particularly

during 1962, Harger (1965) believed that

lynx were repopulating Michigan as a

result of improved habitat conditions in

the upper peninsula.

The lynx was first listed as State

endangered in 1974, but was not

included on the list during revisions in

1976 and 1980. It was returned to the

list as threatened in 1983 and its status

upgraded to endangered in 1987, where

it remains. As such, it is protected from

harvest but conservation actions are

limited because little is known about

the species requirements (T. Weise, in

litt. 1994).

Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s,

reports of lynx in the upper peninsula

of Michigan have been rare; no lynx

have been reported in the lower

peninsula during this time period (T.

Weise, Michigan Department of Natural

Resources, in litt. 1994). The lynx’s

current distribution in Michigan is

unknown but is likely limited to the

upper peninsula. No surveys have been

conducted to determine lynx numbers

or range (T. Weise, in litt. 1994). The

last breeding record was in 1976 (T.

Weise, in litt. 1994). Suitable lynx

habitat is currently available in

Michigan’s upper peninsula (T. Weise,

in litt. 1994). Since the mid-1960’s the

trend of lynx numbers has been

unknown. However, the Service

concludes that low numbers of lynx

may still occur in Michigan’s upper

peninsula with no increasing trend

apparent.

Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region—

Lynx currently are thought to be present

in the western mountains of the

contiguous United States in the

Cascades Range of Washington, the

Thompson-Okanogan Highlands of

northern Washington, the Blue

Mountains of Oregon, and the Rocky

Mountains in Idaho, Montana,

Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.

Lynx habitat in Montana occurs

primarily in the high elevation

mountains. Principal tree species

include lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta),

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and

subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) (Koehler

et al. 1979, Hash 1990). In Washington,

lynx live in boreal-type forests that

occur in north central Washington along

the east slope of the Cascade Mountain

range and the Thompson-Okanogan

Highlands. In Oregon, lynx habitat

exists in the Blue Mountains in

northeastern Oregon and the Cascades.

Preferred lynx habitat in Idaho consists

of dense coniferous, high elevation

forest broken by small shrubby openings

and coniferous swamps (Leptich 1990).

Unsuitable habitat in Wyoming’s Red

Desert isolates the lynx population in

Colorado and extreme southeastern

Wyoming from that of the Rocky

Mountains to the northwest (Thompson

and Halfpenny 1989; Koehler and Aubry

1994). Colorado’s montane and

subalpine forest ecosystems are

naturally highly fragmented (Findley

and Anderson 1956 in Koehler and

Aubry 1994, Thompson 1994). Utah is

considered the southern margin of the

Canada lynx range.

Washington—In Washington, resident

Canada lynx were historically found in

highest concentrations in the northeast

and north central regions, along the east

slope of the Cascade Mountains

(Washington Department of Wildlife

1993). Nellis (1971) regarded lynx

occurrence in Washington as rare to

common. Records of lynx exist from the

Mount Rainier National Park area in the

central Cascades, south in the Cascades

nearly to the Oregon border on Mount

Adams, and in the Blue Mountains in

the southeastern part of the State

(Taylor and Shaw 1927 in Koehler and

Aubry 1994, Dalquest 1948, Washington

Department of Natural Resources

1996a). Washington has designated six

‘‘Lynx Management Zones’’ across north

central Washington (Washington

Department of Natural Resources

1996a). Currently, lynx occupy five of

these zones: Okanogan, Kettle Range,

the Wedge, Little Pend Oreille, and

Salmo Priest. Additionally, lynx occupy

the northern and southern Cascades of

Washington (Washington Department of

Natural Resources 1996a; C. Lee, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.

1998). Much of these areas are in

Federal, Tribal, and State ownership.

A total harvest of 215 lynx was

reported for the hunting and trapping

seasons from 1960–61 to 1990–91, with

peak harvests in 1969–70 (31 lynx) and

1976–77 (39 lynx) (Washington

Department of Wildlife 1993). Following

the 1976–77 season, lynx harvests

decreased markedly, resulting in

increasingly restrictive harvest

regulations. Based on trapper interviews

and track sighting, lynx densities in

northeastern Washington appear to have

been depressed during at least the past

20 years (Washington Department of

Wildlife 1993). In response to markedly

decreased harvests, regulations were

tightened in 1977–78; lynx hunting and

trapping seasons were closed in 1991

(Washington Department of Wildlife

1993).

The current lynx population in the

State of Washington has been estimated

at 96 to 191 individuals (Washington

Department of Wildlife 1993). Brittell et

al. (1989) estimated 225 lynx in

Washington State. However, population

estimates may be high because it was

assumed that habitat suitability and

lynx densities were similar across the

range, which is not the case

(Washington Department of Wildlife

1993). Since 1993, the lynx has been

listed as a State threatened species

(Washington Department of Wildlife

1993). The Service concludes that a

resident lynx population exists in the

State of Washington.

Oregon—Resident Canada lynx

populations were historically low in

Oregon (Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Historic records exist from nine

counties in Oregon (Bailey 1936, Nellis

1971). Recent observations of lynx have

been reported from the Cascades and the

Blue Mountains in northeastern Oregon

(Csuti et al. 1997; E. Gaines, Oregon

Natural Heritage Program, in litt. 1994;

R. Anderson, Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest, in litt. 1998). The

Canada lynx is currently classified as a

furbearer with a closed trapping and

hunting season (E. Gaines, Oregon

Natural Heritage Program, pers. comm.

1997). The Service concludes that a selfsustaining resident population does not

exist in Oregon, but individual animals

are present.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 36999

Idaho—According to Rust (1946),

lynx were distributed throughout

northern Idaho in the early 1940’s,

occurring in 8 of the 10 northern and

north-central counties. In 1990, Hash

reported stable or declining small lynx

populations in Idaho. Harvest records

were unreliable prior to the late 1980’s

because no distinction was made

between lynx and large bobcats. In 1982,

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

initiated a mandatory pelt tagging

program and the number of reported

lynx harvests dropped to zero. Twelve

lynx were reported harvested between

1978 and 1991 (M. Tera-Berns, Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, pers.

comm. 1997). No current population

estimates are available (P. Harrington,

U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994;

J. Hayden, Idaho Department of Fish

and Game, pers. comm. 1994). Recent

confirmed lynx reports are scarce (J.

Conley, Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, in litt. 1994).

Prior to 1977, the species was

considered a predator, subject to

unrestricted harvest with no closed

season and no bag limit. In 1990, in

response to concern over the status of

lynx in Idaho, the Idaho Department of

Fish and Game instituted a statewide

harvest quota of three lynx per year.

Idaho closed the Canada lynx trapping/

hunting season in the 1997/1998 season

because the quota had not been filled in

several years, although lynx remain

classified as a furbearer. In 1995, a

multiple agency Conservation Strategy

was initiated to assess the conservation

of the lynx and other forest carnivores

(Idaho Department of Fish and Game et

al. 1995; Roloff 1995). The Service

concludes that a self-sustaining resident

population does not exist in Idaho, but

individual animals are present.

Montana—In Montana, Canada lynx

were reported to be common (Nellis

1971) and were found throughout the

western part of the State (B. Giddings,

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife,

and Parks, in litt. 1994). After 1985, lynx

populations in Montana were believed

to be at or near their lowest levels in the

past several decades (Hash 1990).

Brainerd (1985) documented evidence

of Canada lynx reproduction; however,

more recent evidence of recruitment

into the population has not been

documented.

Until 1977, lynx in Montana were

classified as nongame and were

provided no regulatory protection (D.

Childress, Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife, and Parks, in litt. 1990).

Assessment of historic population levels

or trends is difficult because lynx often

were not distinguished from bobcats in

harvest records prior to 1977. Between

1959 and 1967, estimates of statewide

harvest ranged from a low of 36 in the

1961–62 season to a high of 376 during

the 1963–64 season (Hoffman et al.

1969). However, these figures likely

overestimate lynx abundance because

they probably include bobcats. Since

1985, harvest records exist from 24

counties in the northwest, southwest,

and west-central part of the State (B.

Giddings, in litt. 1994). Hoffman et al.

(1969) cited numerous records of lynx

harvested in eastern Montana’s Great

Plains region between 1959 and 1967,

but these records are suspect because of

possible misidentification with bobcat.

Beginning in 1977, lynx were

classified as a furbearer. A season length

and licensing regulations were set, but

no quota was imposed. Harvest records

can reflect the status of lynx

populations; however, the lynx harvest

and, consequently, the lynx population

likely were significantly influenced by

extremely high pelt prices during the

mid-1970’s to late 1980’s.

Since 1977, Montana’s highest lynx

harvest occurred in both 1979 and 1984

when 62 lynx were taken in each season

(B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). Although

quotas dropped incrementally from 135

to 40 over an 8-year period (1982–1989),

lynx harvest never approached the

quota levels, ranging from 62 to 15

animals taken per season (B. Giddings,

in litt. 1994). After 1985, lynx harvests

declined to record lows and lynx

populations in Montana were believed

to be at or near their lowest levels in the

past several decades (Hash 1990). In

response, a district of the Montana

Trappers Association requested that

lynx harvest be closed for one season (S.

Conn, Montana Trappers Association, in

litt. 1990). The State responded by

decreasing the quota from 40 to 5 in

1990 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). During

this period, the lowest annual harvest

occurred in 1990, with two lynx taken

while the quota was five (B. Giddings,

in litt. 1994). From 1991 to the present,

the quota has been two, which was

filled annually or exceeded by one

(1991) or two (1993) (B. Giddings, in litt.

1994).

The Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife, and Parks estimated the lynx

population as 1,750 to 2,400 in 1977,

700 to 950 in 1982, and 1,040 lynx in

1994 (B. Giddings, in litt. 1994). These

estimates were determined using a

habitat area/density index. Habitat area

estimates did not account for habitat

areas that would be unsuitable for lynx.

Harvest records, winter track surveys

conducted since 1990–91, and trapper

logbooks, have led Montana Department

of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to conclude

that the State’s lynx population has

recovered and is distributed across its

historic range (B. Giddings, in litt.

1994). However, others familiar with

lynx in the Rocky Mountain region

suggest that these estimates are

optimistic, and express serious concerns

about the status of lynx in Montana (E.

Bangs, pers. comm. 1994; M. Hornocker,

Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute,

Inc., in litt. 1994; G. Koehler, in litt.

1994; L. Nordstrom, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, in litt. 1994; M. Roy

and S. Torbit, National Wildlife

Federation, in litt. 1994). The Service

concludes a resident population of lynx

is present in Montana.

Wyoming—In Wyoming, Canada lynx

are generally believed to have been

uncommon in the State because of the

limited availability of large areas of

suitable habitat (Reeve et al. 1986; Clark

and Stromberg 1987; Wyoming Game

and Fish Department 1992). Until 1957,

lynx were bountied in the State. Since

1973, the lynx has been listed as a

protected nongame species. Nearly all

historical and recent records of lynx in

Wyoming are from the western

mountain ranges, primarily within the

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Reeve

et al. 1986). However, documented

reports of lynx in Yellowstone National

Park are rare (S. Consolo-Murphy,

Yellowstone National Park, pers. comm.

1994). Elsewhere in Wyoming, lynx

have been reported from the Uinta

Mountains in the extreme southwest

and the Big Horn Mountains in the

north-central part of the State, although

these are unconfirmed by field

investigations (Reeve et al. 1986).

Only 12 records of lynx exist for

Wyoming from 1981 to 1994 (C. Gillin,

Wyoming Game and Fish Department,

in litt. 1994). In late 1996 the Wyoming

Game and Fish Department began a

study to attempt to document the

current range of the lynx. Two lynx

have been trapped and collared in the

Wyoming Range and continue to be

tracked (B. Oakleaf, Wyoming Game and

Fish Department, pers. comm. 1998). In

addition, one lynx was confirmed in the

Wind River Range in 1997 (B. Luce,

Wyoming Game and Fish, pers. comm.

1997).

If lynx exist in southeastern

Wyoming, they are isolated from the rest

of the State by the Red Desert but are

contiguous with Colorado lynx

populations (J. Fitzgerald, University of

Northern Colorado, pers. comm. 1994; J.

Halfpenny, Independent Researcher,

pers. comm. 1994; J. Weaver, pers.

comm. 1994). None of the reports of

lynx in the Medicine Bow and Laramie

ranges in southeastern Wyoming have

been confirmed to date (Reeve et al.

1986). The Service concludes that,
37000 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

although individual lynx are present, a

resident population likely no longer

exists in Wyoming.

Utah—In Utah, Canada lynx are

thought to be nearly extirpated,

although it is possible a few may exist

in the high, inaccessible areas of the

Uinta Mountains (B. Blackwell, Utah

Department of Natural Resources, pers.

comm. 1994). Sightings have been

reported from most of the mountain

ranges in Utah. However, because of

misidentification with the bobcat, some

of these records may not be valid

(McKay 1991). Nearly all the reliable

lynx reports are from the Uinta

Mountain Range along the Wyoming

border (McKay 1991). The lynx is listed

as a State sensitive species. The Service

concludes that a self-sustaining resident

population does not exist in Utah, but

individual animals may be present.

Colorado—Colorado represents the

extreme southern edge of the range of

the Canada lynx. Wyoming’s Red Desert

likely acts as a barrier that reduces or

precludes opportunities for immigration

and emigration, effectively isolating

lynx in the southern Rocky Mountains

in Colorado and Wyoming (Halfpenny et

al. 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994; G.

Koehler, in litt. 1994; J. Weaver, in litt.

1994). It is likely Canada lynx never

have been abundant in Colorado

(Colorado Division of Wildlife et al.

1997), partially because its montane and

subalpine forest ecosystems are

naturally highly fragmented (Thompson

1994).

The lynx has been listed as a State

endangered species since 1976

(Colorado Division of Wildlife et al.

1997). From the late 1800’s to 1993,

only 65 reliable lynx records exist; the

last verified lynx specimens were taken

in the early 1970’s (J. Sheppard,

Colorado Division of Wildlife, in litt.

1994). Since the late 1970’s, intensive

surveying efforts have revealed only

minimal evidence of lynx presence

(Halfpenny and Miller 1981; Thompson

and Halfpenny 1989; Anderson 1990;

Thompson and Halfpenny 1991;

Andrews 1992; Carney 1993; Fitzgerald

1994; J. Sheppard, in litt. 1994; J.

Halfpenny, pers. comm. 1994; Colorado

Division of Wildlife et al. 1997). Lynx in

Colorado are believed to be extremely

rare and the long-term viability of the

lynx in Colorado is questionable

(Colorado Division of Wildlife et al.

1997). The Service concludes that a selfsustaining resident population does not

exist in Colorado, but individual

animals may be present.

Other Reports or Sightings—Lynx

observations in Nevada, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana,

Ohio, and Virginia appear to be a result

of transients dispersing during periods

of high lynx density elsewhere (Hall and

Kelson 1959; Burt 1954 in Brocke 1982;

S. Johnson, Indiana Department of

Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; P. Jones,

Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

in litt. 1994; W. Jobman, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997;

Smithsonian Institute, in litt. 1998).

During the early 1960’s, lynx moved

into the Great Plains and the Midwest

region of the United States during an

apparent cyclic high in surrounding

lynx populations (Gunderson 1978;

Mech 1980; DeStefano 1987; South

Dakota Natural Heritage Program, in litt.

1994). Based on the lynx’s ecological

requirements, such records likely

represent dispersing, transient

individuals, not resident populations.

Summary of Status—Based on

information available to the Service at

this time, the Service concludes that

lynx were resident in 16 States in the

contiguous United States. Currently,

resident populations of lynx likely exist

in Maine, Montana, Washington, and

possibly Minnesota. States with recent

records of individual lynx sightings, but

possibly no longer sustaining selfsupporting populations, include

Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho,

Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Lynx

may be extirpated from New Hampshire,

Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, and

Massachusetts.

Previous Federal Action

The Canada lynx was added to

Appendix II of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Flora and Fauna in

1977. The Service classified the Canada

lynx as a category 2 candidate species

in the December 30, 1982, Vertebrate

Notice of Review (47 FR 58454).

Category 2 species were those species

for which information in the Service’s

possession indicated that listing was

possibly appropriate, but for which

substantive data on biological

vulnerability and threats were not

available to support a proposed rule.

Candidate species are currently defined

as those species for which the Service

has sufficient information on file

detailing biological vulnerability and

threats to support issuance of a

proposed rule, but issuance of the

proposed rule is precluded by other

listing actions. On October 6, 1992, the

Service published a notice of a 90-day

petition finding indicating that the

August 22, 1991 petition did not present

substantial information to indicate that

listing the North Cascades population of

the Canada lynx as endangered was

warranted (57 FR 46007). A lawsuit was

filed challenging the October 6, 1992,

petition finding. On July 9, 1993, the

Service published a notice indicating

that it had revisited the North Cascades

90-day petition after receiving new

information and again found that there

was not substantial information to

indicate that listing the population may

be warranted (58 FR 36924). The Service

announced in the finding that a status

review would be conducted. In a

settlement agreement dated November

30, 1993, the Service agreed to conduct

a status review throughout the lower 48

States to determine if the species was

threatened or endangered, and to

complete the review and publish the

finding by November 15, 1994. On

February 2, 1994, the Service published

a notice (59 FR 4887) announcing

continuation of the status review that

was initiated in 1982.

On April 27, 1994, the Service

received a petition to list the

coterminous United States population of

‘‘North American’’ lynx as threatened or

endangered. Additionally, the

petitioners requested that the southern

Rocky Mountain population of the

‘‘North American’’ lynx in Wyoming

and Colorado be emergency listed. A

notice was published on August 26,

1994 (59 FR 44123), indicating that the

petition presented substantial

information that listing may be

warranted, but that there was not

substantial information to indicate that

emergency listing may be warranted for

the Southern Rocky Mountain

population.

On December 27, 1994, the Service

published a notice (59 FR 66507) of its

12-month finding as to the status of the

Canada lynx in the 48 contiguous States,

as directed by the settlement agreement

and the petition, that listing was not

warranted because of the lack of

residency of lynx populations in the

lower 48 States and the Service’s

inability to substantiate that threats

such as ‘‘trapping, hunting, poaching,

and present habitat destruction’’

actually ‘‘threaten the continued

existence of the lynx in the wild.’’ On

January 30, 1996, the Defenders of

Wildlife and 14 other plaintiffs

challenged the Service’s finding by

filing a lawsuit.

On March 27, 1997, the U.S. District

Court (District of Columbia) issued an

order setting aside the not warranted

finding and remanded it to the Service

for further consideration. The Service

was ordered to publish a 12-month

finding on the status of the lynx within

60 days. On May 27, 1997, the Service

published a 12-month petition finding

(62 FR 28653) that the Canada lynx

population in the contiguous United

States was warranted for listing under
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37001

the Act but precluded by higher priority

listing actions. This warranted but

precluded finding automatically

elevated the Canada lynx to candidate

species status. Candidate species are

defined as those species for which the

Service has sufficient information on

file detailing biological vulnerability

and threats to support issuance of a

proposed rule, but issuance of the

proposed rule is precluded by other

listing actions.

On September 15, 1997, Defenders of

Wildlife, et al. filed suit against the

Service in the U.S. District Court,

District of Columbia, arguing that the

Service violated the Act in finding that

listing the Canada lynx population in

the contiguous United States was

warranted but precluded. On December

22, 1997, the court denied the plaintiffs’

motion to enforce judgement against the

Service’s May 1997 warranted but

precluded finding for the Canada lynx

population in the contiguous United

States. At the same time, the court set

an expedited schedule and hearing date

(March 18, 1998) for the lawsuit filed in

September 1997.

On February 12, 1998, the U.S.

District Court approved a settlement

agreement between the Service and the

Plaintiffs that called for the Service to

publish a proposed rule to list the

Canada lynx in the contiguous United

States by June 30, 1998. This proposed

rule for the contiguous United States

population of the Canada lynx fulfills

the requirement of the settlement

agreement and serves as the final 12-

month warranted finding on the

petitions to list the lynx.

Processing of this proposed rule

conforms with the Service’s Listing

Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998

and 1999, published on May 8, 1998 (63

FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the

order in which the Service will process

rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier

1) to processing emergency rules to add

species to the Lists of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists);

second priority (Tier 2) to processing

final determinations on proposals to add

species to the Lists, processing new

proposals to add species to the Lists,

processing administrative findings on

petitions (to add species to the Lists,

delist species, or reclassify listed

species), and processing a limited

number of proposed or final rules to

delist or reclassify species; and third

priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed

or final rules designating critical habitat.

Processing of this proposed rule is a

Tier 2 action. At this time, this region

has no pending Tier 1 actions and is

progressing with work on Tier 2 actions.

This proposed rule also conforms to

earlier Service guidance on assignment

of priorities to species under

consideration for listing as endangered

or threatened published in the Federal

Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR

43098). This guidance sets up a priority

system from 1–12 based on immediacy

and magnitude of threat and on species’

taxonomy. In the Service’s May 1997

finding the lynx was elevated to

candidate status and given a listing

priority of 3.

In accordance with the policy

promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),

the Service will solicit the opinions of

independent Canada lynx experts and/

or conservation biologists regarding the

proposed rule. The purpose of such

review is to ensure listing decisions are

based on scientifically sound data,

assumptions, and analyses, including

input of appropriate experts and

specialists. Peer reviewers will be

identified through requests to research

institutions, universities, and museums

for individuals with recognized

expertise with the subject matter. The

reviewers will be asked to comment

during the public comment period upon

the specific assumptions and

conclusions regarding the proposed

listing and special rule. These

comments will be considered in the

preparation of the final rule as

appropriate. In a status review of the

lynx in 1994, prior to the publication of

the Service’s formal peer review policy,

the Service solicited the comments of 31

independent experts and/or

conservation biologists regarding the

effects of cyclic Canada lynx movements

from Canada to the contiguous United

States. Of the 16 responses received, 9

respondents believed Canada lynx

should be considered resident in

portions of the contiguous United

States, 1 did not (regarding the Great

Lakes region only), and 6 did not

specifically respond to the questions.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations

(50 CFR part 424) promulgated to

implement the listing provisions of the

Act set forth the procedures for adding

species to the Federal lists. A species

may be determined to be an endangered

or threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis) are discussed below.

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Since the mid-to-late 1800’s, several

habitat-related factors influenced, and

continue to contribute to, declines in

local or regional Canada lynx

populations. The most influential factor

affecting lynx habitat is human

alteration of the distribution and

abundance, species composition,

successional stages, and connectivity of

forests, and the resulting changes in the

forests’ capacity to sustain lynx

populations. Additionally, forest

fragmentation isolates habitat into

relatively small patches, thereby

reducing the viability of wildlife that are

dependent on larger areas of forest

habitat (Litvaitis and Harrison 1989).

In all regions of the lynx range in the

contiguous United States, timber harvest

and its related activities are a

predominant land use affecting lynx

habitat. Forestry practices can be

beneficial or detrimental for lynx

depending on the method and timing by

which they are conducted. Timber

harvest can be used to achieve the early

successional stages of forest preferred by

snowshoe hares, although it takes time

(15 years or more depending on the type

of forest) for harvested areas to reach

this stage (Monthey 1986, Quinn and

Parker 1987, Koehler 1990, Koehler and

Brittell 1990, Washington Department of

Wildlife 1993). For example, in the

West, thinning (either single tree or

group selection), if implemented in a

well-planned harvest prescription, can

hasten the development of latesuccessional forests containing

structures such as downed woody

debris for thermal and security cover

and for denning; early thinning to

maximize tree-growth potential can be

compatible with snowshoe hare and

lynx habitat needs provided that stands

are thinned before snowshoe hares

recolonize the area (Koehler and Aubry

1994).

Intensive tree harvesting (e.g., largescale clearcutting) can eliminate the

mosaic of habitats necessary for Canada

lynx survival, including late

successional denning and early

successional prey habitat. Specifically,

these activities can result in reduced

cover, unusable forest openings, and

monotypic stands with a sparse

understory that are unfavorable for

Canada lynx and/or their prey (Brittell

et al. 1989; de Vos and Matel 1952;

Harger 1965; Hatler 1988; Koehler 1990;

K. Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994; J.

Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). Canada lynx

avoid openings such as clearcuts,

unforested areas, and grasslands

(Koehler et al. 1979; Koehler and Brittell

1990, Murray et al. 1994) and snowshoe

hares are also unlikely to use such areas

because of the lack of cover (Koehler et

al. 1979; H. Golden, Alaska Department
37002 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1994;

Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Great Lakes and Northeast Region

Softwoods that provided Canada lynx

habitat were logged extensively during

the late 1800’s and early 1900’s (Jackson

1961; Barbour et al. 1980; Belcher 1980;

Irland 1982). Over a relatively short

period, timber extraction during this era

resulted in the replacement of latesuccessional conifer forest with

extensive tracts of very early

successional habitat and eliminated

cover for lynx and hare (Jackson 1961,

Keener 1971). Coniferous forests also

were cleared for agriculture during this

period. In the Northeast Region, slash,

accumulated during logging operations,

fueled wildfires that burned vast

acreages of softwood forest (Belcher

1980; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). This

sudden alteration of habitat likely

resulted in sharp declines in snowshoe

hare numbers over large areas,

subsequently reducing Canada lynx

numbers (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971; K.

Gustafson, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier,

pers. comm. 1994).

During these early periods of timber

extraction in the Northeast and Great

Lakes Regions, probable declines in

Canada lynx numbers were concurrent

with substantial increases in human

populations and unregulated trapping in

or near lynx habitat (K. Gustafson, pers.

comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm.

1994). By the turn of the century in the

Northeast Region, historical records

indicate that lynx populations were

declining or were nearly extirpated

(Silver 1974; Vermont Department of

Fish and Game 1987; K. Gustafson, in

litt. 1994; G. Parsons, in litt. 1994).

The impacts of the logging conducted

in the Northeast Region during the late

1800’s continue to affect Canada lynx

habitat. In Maine, softwood cover and

dense sapling growth provided

improved snowshoe hare habitat after

timber harvest and fires in late

successional forests (Monthey 1986).

However, in the western sections of the

Northeast Region, extensive tracts of

predominantly softwood forests that

were harvested and burned-over during

the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were

subsequently replaced with regenerating

hardwoods (D. Degraff, pers. comm.

1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). For

a period of time, this extensive area

would have been in the early

successional habitat used by snowshoe

hare. However, such extensive tracts did

not provide the mosaic of forest habitats

required by lynx and, as succession

progressed, these tracts became

unsuitable for both lynx and hare.

Hardwood forests do not typically

supply adequate cover for snowshoe

hares (Monthey 1986). Additional

declines in hare populations may have

occurred during the 1940’s and 1950’s

as a result of large-scale forest

maturation (Litvaitis et al. 1991).

In Maine, large tracts of forest (some

as large as 36-square mile townships)

were harvested in the 1960’s to reduce

the incidence of spruce budworm.

Harvesting of these large tracts create a

simplified, monotypic forest over large

areas, not a mosaic of forest stands.

Passage of the State Forestry Practices

Act has required clearcut size to be

substantially reduced.

At higher elevations and northern

latitudes in the Northeast, red spruce

and balsam fir are important

components of snowshoe hare habitat.

Declines in red spruce forests have been

documented, and drought, acid

deposition, and other human-generated

pollutants have been suggested as

principal causes (Scott et al. 1984).

Lynx populations have not increased

in the Northeast Region despite some

apparent improvements in habitat.

Forested habitat in the Northeast has

increased because of land-use changes

during the past century (Irland 1982;

Litvaitis 1993). In some areas there may

be a gradual upward trend in the

coniferous component as spruce and fir

regenerate beneath hardwood species

(D. Degraff, pers. comm. 1994). Several

of the Northeast States support

adequate, if not abundant, snowshoe

hare populations (C. Grove, Green

Mountain National Forest, pers. comm.

1994; F. Hurley, in litt. 1994; J. Lanier,

pers. comm. 1994).

Isolation of suitable habitat and lack

of immigration apparently remain

important factors in the continued

absence of lynx populations in the

Northeast Region (Litvaitis et al. 1991;

W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt.

1994; R. Lafond, Quebec Department of

Recreation, Fish, and Game, pers.

comm. 1994). Historically, resident

Canada lynx populations in the

Northeast were periodically

supplemented with transient or

dispersing individuals from the north

(Litvaitis et al. 1991; J. Lanier, pers.

comm. 1994). However, over the past

several decades, Canada lynx numbers

also declined in the southern portions of

its range in Canada in response to

overexploitation and clearing of forested

habitat for agriculture, timber, and

human settlement (Mills 1990;

McAlpine and Heward 1993; Quebec

Department of Recreation, Fish, and

Game, in litt. 1993). The fragmented

landscape across southern Quebec

probably presents a substantial barrier

to lynx attempting to disperse

southward across the St. Lawrence River

(W. Krohn, in litt. 1994; R. Lafond, pers.

comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm.

1994; J. Litvaitis, University of New

Hampshire, pers. comm. 1994).

However, lynx from a resident

population in a Quebec reserve south of

the St. Lawrence should encounter little

difficulty crossing into Maine (C.

McLaughlin, Maine Department of

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt.

1998). Similarly, movement of lynx into

Maine from occupied habitat in New

Brunswick should be possible.

Today, diminished numbers of

Canada lynx in southern Canada and the

paucity of functional dispersal routes

from Canadian lynx populations have

substantially restricted the opportunity

for Canada lynx to recolonize suitable

habitat in New York, Vermont, and New

Hampshire (Litvaitis et al. 1991; W.

Krohn, in litt. 1994; R. La Fond, pers.

comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm.

1994).

In 1990, the U.S. Forest Service

published a report that examined the

northern forest lands in New York,

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine

(Harper et al. 1990). The 26-million acre

study area encompassed most of the

historic range of lynx in the region.

Eighty-four percent of northern forest

lands in the region are currently

privately owned and 16 percent are in

public ownership, of which only

300,000 acres are federally owned.

Commercial forestry continues to be the

dominant land use on 60 percent of the

private lands in the northern forests.

The rapid pace of subdivision for

recreation home sites has been

identified as a serious concern to

maintaining the integrity of Northeast

forests (Harper et al. 1990).

Habitat fragmentation from forestry

management programs, agricultural

conversions, and roadway construction

may be limiting lynx in the Great Lakes

States. However, insufficient

information currently exists to assess

the impact of these threats to lynx. Lynx

habitat quality appeared to be increasing

in Michigan’s upper peninsula as of

1965 (Harger 1965); however, as of 1998,

lynx numbers have not increased in

response to predicted improved habitat

(Kurta 1995).

Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region

The majority of Canada lynx habitat

in the West occurs on public lands.

Research linking forest management on

Federal lands in the West to Canada

lynx habitat requirements is minimal.

In the interior Columbia River basin

of eastern Washington and Oregon,

Idaho, and western Montana, timber

harvest patterns, along with the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37003

exclusion of fire have converted much

of the late successional stage forest to

younger, mid-successional stage forests

(U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management 1996). There has been an

increase in fragmentation of forest lands

and loss of connectivity within and

between blocks of habitat, which has

isolated some wildlife habitats and

reduced the ability of some wildlife

populations to move across the

landscape (U.S. Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management 1997).

In the Seeley-Swan Valley in

northwestern Montana, the forest

landscape has become increasingly

fragmented since 1930, consisting of

smaller, more numerous patches with

more edge and less interior habitat (Hart

1994). Fragmentation was caused by an

extensive network of highway and forest

roads, timber harvest, and residential

construction. Timber harvest replaced

fire as the dominant disturbance process

(Hart 1994). Mature/overmature forests

have declined in total area, while

seedling and sapling seral stages have

become more extensive (Hart 1994). The

amount of predicted lynx habitat in the

Seeley-Swan Valley has declined 36

percent since 1930 and became more

fragmented over time (Hart 1994).

Recolonization of suitable lynx

habitat within the State of Washington

eventually may be precluded by the

fragmentation of habitat and potential

isolation from the lynx population in

Canada (Washington Department of

Wildlife 1993).

Fire has played an important role in

forest ecology in western mountain

ranges of the United States. Forest fires

naturally maintained mosaics of early

successional forest stands, unburnt bogs

and swamps, and late-successional

conifer forest forming ideal snowshoe

hare and Canada lynx habitat (Todd

1985; Fischer and Bradley 1987; Quinn

and Parker 1987). During the early

twentieth century, Federal and State

agencies in the contiguous United States

enacted a policy of suppressing forest

fires. The lack of adequate hare habitat

in southern latitudes may be partially a

result of fire suppression during the past

50 years (Koehler 1990). Suppression of

forest fires in the West has allowed

forests to mature, thereby reducing

habitat suitability for snowshoe hares

and Canada lynx (Brittell et al. 1989;

Fox 1978; Koehler 1990; Washington

Department of Wildlife 1993; T. Bailey,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt.

1994; H. Golden, pers. comm. 1994).

Fire suppression is most likely affecting

lynx habitat in areas where historical

frequency of fires is shorter than the

length of time fires have been

suppressed in the Region (P. Stickney,

U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994).

In all regions of the contiguous United

States lynx range, clearing of forests for

urbanization, recreational developments

such as ski areas, and agriculture has

fragmented, degraded, or reduced the

available suitable lynx habitat, reduced

the prey base, and increased human

disturbance and the likelihood of

accidental trapping, shooting, or

highway mortality (de Vos and Matel

1952; Harger 1965; Belcher 1980; Thiel

1987; Todd 1985; Thompson 1987;

Harper et al. 1990; Brocke et al. 1991;

Thompson and Halfpenny 1991;

Colorado Division of Wildlife et al.

1997) (see factor E).

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Education

Purposes

The Service believes that the effects of

an overharvest of Canada lynx during

the 1970’s and 1980’s persist today and

continue to reduce the potential for

recovery of lynx populations in the

contiguous United States by precluding

repopulation of areas of suitable habitat.

Where exploitation is intense and

recruitment is low, trapping can

significantly depress lynx populations

(Koehler and Aubry 1994). Fewer

Canada lynx of breeding age reduce the

ability and degree to which lynx

populations recover after population

lows (de Vos and Matel 1952; Brand and

Keith 1979; Todd 1985; Ward and Krebs

1985; Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988;

Brittell et al. 1989). Elton and Nicholson

(1942) recognized that overharvest had

the potential to diminish lynx

populations to levels where the natural

cycles of lynx populations could not

occur.

Lynx behavior makes them

susceptible to trapping. Canada lynx are

easy to catch in traps (Bailey et al. 1986;

Hatler 1988; Mills 1990). The potential

number of traps a lynx encounters is

increased when it moves long distances

to search for prey. Canada lynx are more

vulnerable to concentrated trapping

efforts because lynx focus their hunting

in areas where snowshoe hare densities

are high (Ward and Krebs 1985). On the

Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, juvenile lynx

were five times more vulnerable to

trapping than adults; several juvenile

siblings can easily be trapped from a

small area (Bailey et al. 1986). Trapping

females that are accompanied by kittens

often results in the death of those

kittens because they are unable to feed

and protect themselves (Bailey et al.

1986; Carbyn and Patriquin 1983; Parker

et al. 1983). It is possible for a trapper

to remove a large proportion of a local

lynx population by trapping where lynx

are concentrated (Carbyn and Patriquin

1983; Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al.

1986; J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994).

Human-induced mortality is the most

important mortality factor for Canada

lynx populations (Ward and Krebs

1985). Trapping mortality has been

shown to be entirely additive (i.e., in

addition to natural mortality) rather

than compensatory (taking the place of

natural mortality) (Brand and Keith

1979). In Minnesota, trapping was

estimated to account for 81 percent of

known lynx mortality during cyclic

lows and 58 percent of mortality during

cyclic highs (Henderson 1978). In

numerous studies, trapping or shooting

was documented as the cause of a

substantial majority of Canada lynx

mortalities (Mech 1980; Carbyn and

Patriquin 1983; Ward and Krebs 1985;

Bailey et al. 1986).

Unregulated trapping and hunting of

Canada lynx continued for decades in

the contiguous United States. Lynx were

bountied in several States until

relatively recently. Canada lynx were

likely overexploited during periods of

unregulated harvest in the Northeast

and Great Lakes regions (K. Gustafson,

pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm.

1994). In the Rocky Mountains/Cascades

Region, lynx population declines prior

to 1940 were attributed to high trapping

pressure (Nellis 1971).

Historically, lynx trapping provided a

significant economic return in the fur

trading industry. During periods of high

pelt prices, the potential for obtaining

even a single lynx pelt made trapping

efforts worthwhile (Quinn and Parker

1987, Hatler 1988). This economic

incentive increases the threat of over

exploitation of Canada lynx

populations.

The present low numbers of lynx in

the contiguous United States and

southern Canada are the residual effects

of substantial overtrapping that

occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s, in

response to unprecedented high pelt

prices (Bailey et al. 1986; B. Berg, pers.

comm. 1994; D. Mech, pers. comm.

1994; M. Novak, Ontario Ministry

Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1994; A.

Todd, Alberta Department of Forestry,

Lands, and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994).

As a result of fur demands by the

fashion industry, pelt prices began

increasing around 1975 (Hatler 1988,

Hash 1990). In Montana, the 1974

average pelt price was $63, but by 1978

the average price increased over 500

percent to $348 (B. Giddings, in litt.

1994). Lynx pelt prices peaked in the

mid-1980’s at nearly $500 and remained

above $200 per pelt for 12 years until

1989. Pelt prices were comparable

throughout the United States and
37004 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Canada (Todd 1985; Hatler 1988; I.

McKay, Manitoba Natural Resources, in

litt. 1994; Quebec Department of

Recreation, Fish, and Game, in litt.

1994).

The number of Montana bobcat and

lynx trapping licenses is an example of

a general index of trapper effort and also

of the amount of trapping pressure on

lynx populations. Records indicate that

the price of pelts influenced the

trapping effort. The average number of

licensed lynx and bobcat trappers from

1972–73 through 1974–75 was 1,600 (B.

Giddings, in litt. 1994). After the record

high pelt prices in 1978–79, a total of

nearly 5,000 trappers were licensed for

the next season. Although information

on licenses was not available after 1982,

trapper effort likely remained high as

long as pelt prices were high and lynx

were being trapped. Records for other

regions during this period demonstrate

the same trend (Brand and Keith 1979;

Todd 1985; Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler

1988; Washington Department of

Wildlife 1993; M. DonCarlos, in litt.

1994; I. McKay, in litt. 1994; Quebec

Department of Recreation, Fish, and

Game, in litt. 1994).

This period of intense trapping

pressure also occurred during a period

of naturally declining Canada lynx

numbers in Canada. Periods of

population decline are critical times

when trapping has a greater additive

impact on a population’s ability to

recover from periodic lows (Brand and

Keith 1979; Bailey et al. 1986). Alberta’s

lynx fur harvest during the 1975–76

cyclic low was still nearly 2 to 3 times

higher than that during the preceding

two cyclic lows (Todd 1985). In Quebec

from 1976 to 1979, lynx harvest reached

record highs for a period during a cyclic

low in hare and lynx populations

(Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish,

and Game, in litt. 1993). These harvest

levels are linked to the highest pelt

prices ever recorded there and to a

continuous and sustained increase in

the number of trappers during the

preceding decade.

The additive trapping mortality of

Canada lynx during the 1970’s and

1980’s depleted the breeding stock of

lynx populations in the United States

and southern Canada, which limited the

ability for lynx populations to

subsequently recover and repopulate

areas of suitable habitat. Lynx

populations may have become so

severely depleted that they cannot reach

their former densities during the periods

of abundant prey and maximum

reproductive success (Quinn and Parker

1987; Hatler 1988). The lynx population

of the 1980’s and 1990’s has reflected

the over exploitation of the previous

decade in the lack of cyclic lynx highs

in parts of the contiguous United States

and the lack of typical cyclic influxes of

lynx from Canada, although data have

indicated normal hare populations (M.

DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; M. DonCarlos,

pers. comm. 1994).

In response to substantially declining

harvests during the 1970’s and 1980’s

(indicating that lynx populations were

being over exploited), Washington,

Montana, Minnesota, Alberta, British

Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec,

and Alaska severely restricted or closed

their lynx harvest seasons (Bailey et al.

1986; Hatler 1988; Hash 1990;

Washington Department of Wildlife

1993; S. Conn, in litt. 1990; M.

DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in

litt. 1994; R. McFetridge, Alberta

Environmental Protection, in litt. 1994;

I. McKay, in litt. 1994; M. Novak, pers.

comm. 1994). Because of continued

concern for lynx populations, none of

the States have relaxed their

restrictions, and many Canadian

provinces still maintain careful control

of lynx harvest (Alberta Environmental

Protection 1993; Washington

Department of Wildlife 1993; M.

DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in

litt. 1994; R. McFetridge, in litt. 1994; I.

McKay pers. comm. 1997).

As of 1993, the lynx population in

portions of Quebec apparently has not

yet fully recovered despite adequate,

increasing hare populations (Quebec

Department of Recreation, Fish, and

Game, in litt. 1993). Because of concern

over a potentially declining lynx

population, the British Columbia

government closed the season on

Canada lynx for a 3-year period in the

mid-1990’s (A. Fontana, British

Columbia Department of Wildlife, pers.

comm. 1994). Manitoba closed its lynx

season Province-wide from 1995–1997

because of low lynx numbers (I. McKay,

pers. comm. 1997).

States where lynx currently or

historically occur declare harvest of

lynx illegal, with the exception of

Montana, where legal harvest is set by

a limited statewide quota of two. In all

States where the lynx was considered to

be a resident species, lynx are included

on the State’s lists of endangered,

threatened, protected, or regulated game

species.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease and predation are not known

to be factors threatening Canada lynx.

However, in areas with human

population centers, or high human

densities in more rural areas, diseases of

domestic animals may pose potential

threats to lynx (R. Brocke, State

University of New York, pers. comm.

1994).

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory

Mechanisms

There are no regulatory mechanisms

that address the management or

conservation of functional Canada lynx

habitat, although most states provide the

Canada lynx with protection from

hunting and trapping.

Lynx are classified as endangered by

4 of the 16 States in the contiguous

United States where the Canada lynx

was considered to be a resident species,

Vermont (1972), New Hampshire (1980),

Michigan (1987), and Colorado (1976).

Lynx are classified as threatened by

Washington (1993). Utah has classified

the lynx as a sensitive species. The lynx

is classified as a species of special

concern in Maine (1997) and in

Wisconsin it is protected (1997). Two

States officially classify them as

extirpated: Pennsylvania (J. Belfonti, in

litt. 1994) and Massachusetts (J.

Cardoza, in litt. 1994). Five States

classify lynx as small game or furbearers

with closed seasons: Idaho (1997), New

York (1967), Minnesota (1984),

Wyoming (1973), and Oregon (1997).

A Canada lynx trapping season still

occurs in Montana, but the legal, State

wide quota is restricted to two animals.

In response to declining harvests,

Montana has substantially reduced the

lynx quota since 1977 (when the lynx

was added to the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered

Species (CITES) and Montana classified

the species as a furbearer). Since 1991,

the quota has been two for the entire

State, which has been met or slightly

exceeded annually (B. Giddings, pers.

comm. 1998).

Estimates of illegal harvest of Canada

lynx are unavailable for most areas.

Illegal harvest has been a serious

concern in localized areas in the past

(Washington Department of Wildlife

1993).

On February 4, 1977, the Canada lynx

was included in Appendix II of CITES.

The CITES is an international treaty

established to prevent international

trade that may be detrimental to the

survival of plants and animals. A CITES

export permit must be issued by the

exporting country before an Appendix II

species may be shipped. The CITES

permits may not be issued if the export

will be detrimental to the survival of the

species or if the specimens were not

legally acquired. However, CITES does

not itself regulate take or domestic

trade.

Regulatory mechanisms to protect

Canada lynx habitat are limited.

Although the U.S. Forest Service
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37005

classifies lynx as a sensitive species

within the contiguous United States,

few national forests have developed

population viability objectives or

management guidelines required by the

National Forest Management Act for

Canada lynx because of limited

information about the species’

requirements. All national forests are

obligated to protect biological diversity

on Federal lands.

In the northeast region, the Green

Mountain National Forest Plan states

that the national forest will develop

management plans if and when an

established Canada lynx population is

detected (U.S. Forest Service 1986a).

There are no specific regulations or

guidelines pertaining to lynx habitat.

The White Mountain National Forest

Plan includes Canada lynx as an

indicator species and limits recreational

trail density in Canada lynx habitat. The

forest plan calls for consideration of the

needs of the species in planning

alternatives, the monitoring of lynx

populations, and for initiating or

coordinating studies and/or recovery

efforts (U.S. Forest Service 1986b).

In the Great Lakes region, some

national forests apply standards for gray

wolf (Canis lupus) to guide Canada lynx

habitat management (M. Shedd,

Superior National Forest, pers. comm.

1994). It is unknown whether wolf

standards are appropriate for lynx.

Washington Department of Wildlife

(1993) determined that habitat needs of

Canada lynx had not been considered

adequately while planning for timber

harvest on national forest and State

lands in some areas of the State.

Several lynx conservation plans exist

or are under development. Such plans

include the lynx habitat management

guidelines for Washington (Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993;

R. Naney, Okanogan National Forest, in

litt. 1994), the Idaho State conservation

effort (Roloff 1995), Washington

Department of Natural Resources

conservation strategy (Washington

Department of Natural Resources

1996a), Boise-Cascade Timber

Corporation lynx habitat management

plan in Washington (Whitwill and

Roloff 1996), Kootenai National Forest

in Montana (Kootenai National Forest

1997), and the Southern Rocky

Mountains, Draft strategy for the

conservation and reestablishment of

lynx and wolverine in the southern

Rocky Mountains (Colorado Division of

Wildlife et al. 1997). At this time, there

has been no comprehensive review of

these plans to determine whether the

guidelines in these plans have the

ability to maintain or increase lynx

populations. The degree to which these

plans are or will be implemented and

monitored varies.

Land use on private lands can have a

great impact on Canada lynx habitat.

The majority of Canada lynx habitat in

the Northeast region occurs on private

land, ranging from small residential lots

to large industrial ownerships (Harper et

al. 1990). All States in the region have

various laws and regulations regarding

environmental issues (Harper et al.

1990). Indirectly these regulations may

promote the conservation of habitat;

however, none are directed specifically

to Canada lynx habitat conservation. In

the Northeast region, the Northern

Forest Lands Council has a charter to

maintain traditional patterns of

landownership and use; part of this

effort includes a forest inventory

(Northern Forest Lands Council, in litt.

1994). How this effort may affect the

conservation of Canada lynx habitat is

unknown.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

Loss of suitable habitat for Canada

lynx reduces the potential for

population growth or recolonization of

the lynx and further confines lynx to

smaller, more isolated habitat units

(Weaver 1993). Isolation increases the

susceptibility of the lynx to humancaused threats, natural stochastic

events, and effects of genetic bottlenecks

(Andrews 1992; Weaver 1993). In the

Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region much

of lynx habitat is naturally disjunct and

habitat connectivity is required across

large geographic areas to facilitate

dispersal and genetic exchange (Roloff

1995). The increased fragmentation of

forest lands and loss of connectivity

within and among blocks of habitat in

the interior Columbia River basin of

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

Montana has reduced the ability of some

wildlife populations to move across the

landscape, resulting in long-term loss of

genetic interchange (U.S. Forest Service

and Bureau of Land Management 1997).

Elevated levels of human access into

forests are a significant threat to Canada

lynx because they increase the

likelihood of lynx encountering people,

which may result in displacement of

lynx from their habitats and/or possible

injuries or deaths by intentional or

unintentional shooting, trapping, and

vehicle accidents (Hatler 1988; Thiel

1987; Brittell et al. 1989; Koehler and

Brittell 1990; Brocke et al. 1991;

Andrew 1992; Washington Department

of Wildlife 1993; Brocke et al. 1993; M.

Hunter, University of Maine, pers.

comm. 1994). Human access into

Canada lynx habitat in many areas has

increased over the last several decades

because of increasing human

populations and increased construction

of roads and trails and the growing

popularity of snowmobiles and offroad

vehicles. In the interior Columbia River

basin of Washington, Oregon, Idaho,

and Montana, increased human access

has decreased the availability of areas

with low human activities, which are

important to large forest carnivores,

including lynx (U.S. Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management 1997).

Lynx will use some types of roads for

hunting and travel (Koehler and Aubry

1994). Koehler and Aubry (1994)

concluded road construction and

maintenance are important components

of lynx habitat management because

they both destroy and create prey

habitat, but also make lynx more

vulnerable to human-caused mortalities.

In the interior Columbia River basin of

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

Montana, high road densities were

found primarily in intensively managed

forest lands of both public and private

ownership (U.S. Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management 1997).

Wide-ranging species are impacted by

the increased road densities that often

accompany human-caused forest

fragmentation (Litvaitis 1993). The

Loomis State Forest in Washington

plans to construct a total of 615 mi of

roads from 1996 to 2005 (Washington

Department of Natural Resources

1996b). According to the plan, the

density of roads in primary lynx habitat

will be 1.91 to 3.04 road mi per square

mile (sq mi) (Washington Department of

Natural Resources 1996b). Even roads

that are considered ‘‘closed’’ will

continue to be accessible to

snowmobiles, thereby allowing access to

higher elevation lynx habitat by humans

and lynx competitors.

In the Pioneer Mountains of Montana,

a currently narrow, unpaved road is

being paved and widened to further

encourage already high recreational use

of the forest (Harding Lawson

Associates Infrastructure, Inc. 1996).

The project area is occupied, highquality lynx habitat, although lynx use

of the area is currently restricted

because of intense recreational use of

the area (Harding Lawson Associates

Infrastructure, Inc. 1996). Completion of

this road project will impact lynx by

causing further deterioration of lynx

habitat, because increased human

activity will sever lynx travel corridors

and mortalities from vehicle collisions

will increase (Harding Lawson

Associates Infrastructure, Inc. 1996).

Blocks of suitable habitat, both public

and private, are often dissected by

extensive networks of paved roads.

Traffic on highways has been shown to
37006 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

pose a considerable mortality risk to

Canada lynx (Brocke et al. 1991; B.

Ruediger, U.S. Forest Service, pers.

comm. 1997). Highway densities are a

contributing factor in the decline of

carnivores, including the lynx, in the

contiguous United States (Ruediger

1996). Dispersing or transient lynx are

more vulnerable to traffic deaths than

resident lynx because their movements

over large areas increase their exposure

to roads. In the Great Lakes States,

recent records of lynx are from

mortalities due to vehicle collisions,

which could limit the potential for

reestablishment of populations in

Wisconsin or Michigan.

Increasing human access into Canada

lynx habitat has increased the

vulnerability of Canada lynx to both

legal and illegal harvest in areas that,

historically, were relatively isolated

from humans (Todd 1985; McKay 1991;

Washington Department of Wildlife

1993; M. Hunter, pers. comm. 1994). In

the Uinta Mountains of Utah, most of

the documented Canada lynx specimens

were shot during deer hunting season in

an area easily accessed by hunters

(McKay 1991). In Washington, there is

concern that human access may reduce

the number of Canada lynx emigrating

from British Columbia, further

increasing the vulnerability of the

remaining small population

(Washington Department of Wildlife

1993). The high degree of access into

Alberta’s forests created by petroleum

development and logging was suggested

as an explanation for why Alberta

produced a large proportion of the total

Canadian lynx harvest in the 1970’s and

1980’s (Todd 1985).

Human access is a particularly

important factor during periods when

Canada lynx populations are low and

concentrated in localized refugia. Brand

and Keith (1979) indicated that refugia

may have supported only adult lynx

during population lows. Refugia were

therefore critical for repopulating

available range elsewhere when the

population increased (Todd 1985). If

such refugia were accessible to humans,

local lynx populations could be easily

extirpated by trapping, particularly if

there are incentives such as high pelt

prices (Carbyn and Patriquin 1983;

Ward and Krebs 1985; Bailey et al. 1986;

J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994; Koehler

and Aubry 1994).

The Canada lynx may be displaced or

eliminated when competitors (e.g.,

bobcat, coyote) expand into its range (de

Vos and Matel 1952; Parker et al. 1983;

Quinn and Parker 1987; M. DonCarlos,

pers. comm. 1994; D. Major, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994;

J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). The

Canada lynx is at a competitive

disadvantage against these other species

because it is a specialized predator,

whereas bobcat and coyotes are

generalists that are able to feed on a

wide variety of prey. Historically,

bobcat and coyotes have not been able

to compete with lynx in areas that

receive deep snow cover, where lynx are

much more highly adapted. Where

Canada lynx and bobcat or coyote

ranges overlapped, their niches were

segregated by winter range conditions

(McCord and Cardoza 1982; Parker et al.

1983; Quinn and Parker 1987). In

Yukon, Canada, coyotes selected snow

that was shallower and harder than that

used by lynx (Murray et al. 1994).

Some biologists believe competition

has played a significant role in the

decline of Canada lynx (Brocke 1982;

Parker et al. 1983; E. Bangs, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.

1994). Murray et al. (1994) speculate

that, in Yukon, use of open spruce

forests by lynx may have been to avoid

areas where coyotes were present. In

Utah, where more habitat is suitable for

bobcat, it has been suggested that bobcat

competition with Canada lynx resulted

in the possible extirpation of Canada

lynx from Utah (B. Blackwell, pers.

comm. 1994). Research has detected

direct competition in certain areas, as

on Cape Breton Island where, without

changes in forest habitat, bobcats

displaced Canada lynx from all areas

except high elevations, where snow

accumulation limited the bobcat’s range

(Parker et al. 1983).

Competition between Canada lynx

and other species may be facilitated

through alteration of forests by timber

harvest or other human activities.

Modified habitat may be more suitable

to Canada lynx competitors or may

facilitate the establishment of a

competitor after local extirpation of the

lynx (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn

and Parker 1987). In the Northeast

United States, extensive clearing of

forests for timber and agriculture

improved conditions for white-tailed

deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

populations, which subsequently may

have influenced a northward expansion

of bobcats into the region (K. Gustafson,

pers. comm. 1994). Additionally, mild

weather in some regions for the past

decade has improved conditions and

habitat for bobcat and coyotes,

particularly by minimizing snow depth

(Quinn and Parker 1987; J. Weaver, pers.

comm. 1994). Coyotes have been

colonizing Maine and New Hampshire

since the 1970’s (Litvaitis and Harrison

1989).

Competition during late winter, a time

when lynx are already nutritionally

stressed, may be especially detrimental

to lynx (Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Snowmobile trails and roads that are

maintained for winter recreation and

forest management activities enable

coyotes and bobcats to access lynx

winter habitat (Koehler and Aubry

1994).

Snowmobile use in the Great Lakes

and Rocky Mountain/Cascades regions

has resulted in an increase in both

human presence and the prevalence of

packed snow corridors in lynx habitat.

The increased snowmobile use and the

increased area in which snowmobiles

are used likely diminishes habitat

quality for lynx, and also decreases the

lynx’s competitive advantage in deep

snow. This results in an increased threat

posed by competitors, as a result of the

increase in hard-packed snow trails.

Legal trapping activities for bobcat,

coyotes, and other furbearers create a

potential for incidental capture of lynx.

The threat to resident lynx from legal

trapping for other species may be

limited because most bobcat or coyote

trapping occurs in areas unlikely to

support lynx (M. DonCarlos, pers.

comm. 1994; K. Elowe, Maine

Department of Inland Fisheries and

Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier,

pers. comm. 1994; D. Mech, pers. comm.

1994; Maine Department of Inland

Fisheries and Wildlife, in litt. 1997).

Where Canada lynx populations have

been substantially reduced or extirpated

in the contiguous United States, natural

recolonization of suitable habitat likely

will require lynx migration from other

areas in the contiguous United States or

Canada. However, because of the

unsuitable habitat isolating Colorado

and southeastern Wyoming from the

remainder of the Rocky Mountains/

Cascades, recolonization through

immigration is extremely unlikely.

Winter navigation and associated ice

breaking on the St. Mary’s River

between Ontario and Upper Michigan

could be a potential threat to

reestablishment or maintenance of a

lynx population in that area. Presently,

the St. Mary’s River shipping channel is

not kept open between January 15 and

March 25. Ice breaking before or after

that period could reduce the amount of

time available for lynx to immigrate

across the St. Mary’s shipping channel

from Ontario to Michigan (Robinson and

Fuller 1980).

Distinct Population Segment

For a species to be listable under the

Act, it must meet the definition of a

‘‘species’’ as provided in the Act. The

Act defines ‘‘species’’ as a species,

subspecies, or distinct population

segment of a vertebrate species. On
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37007

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), the

Service and National Marine Fisheries

Service published final policy guidance

concerning recognition of Distinct

Vertebrate Population Segments for

consideration under the Act. It is

necessary for the Service to use this

Vertebrate Population Policy when it is

considering listing a vertebrate species

or species as endangered or threatened

in only a portion of its range. In

developing this proposed rule the

Service evaluated whether Canada lynx

in the contiguous United States

constitutes a distinct population

segment under the population policy.

While application of the vertebrate

population policy may result in the

identification of a greater number of

potentially listable entities, the policy

was developed specifically to allow for

more refined application of the Act that

better reflects the biological needs of the

taxon being considered and avoids the

inclusion of entities that may not

require the considerable protections of

the Act. This approach better serves

Congress’s intent that listing of distinct

population segments be conducted

‘‘sparingly.’’

Under the vertebrate population

policy, two elements, discreteness and

significance, must be considered to

determine whether a species’

population meets the definition of a

distinct population segment. If a

population is discrete and significant,

its status is evaluated using the five

listing factors described in section

4(a)(1) of the Act to determine if it meets

the definition of either threatened or

endangered.

A species’ population segment can be

considered discrete from the remainder

of the taxon if it satisfies either one of

the following conditions: (1) ‘‘it is

markedly separated from other

populations of the same taxon as a

consequence of physical, physiological,

ecological, or behavioral factors,’’ or (2)

‘‘it is delimited by international

governmental boundaries within which

differences in control of exploitation,

management of habitat, conservation

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist

that are significant in light of section

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.’’ Given that the

Service has determined that resident,

viable numbers of Canada lynx exist in

the contiguous United States (see

Background section), the Service

concludes that the contiguous United

States population of the Canada lynx is

discrete based on the international

boundary between Canada and the

contiguous United States because of

differences in status and management of

Canada lynx between the United States

and Canada.

In Canada, management of forest

lands and conservation of wildlife

habitat varies depending on Provincial

regulations. In Alberta, there is no law

regulating forest practices and the status

of Canada lynx in Alberta is of concern

because of habitat-related threats as a

result of logging (B. Triechel, Alberta

Environmental Protection, pers. comm.

1997). There is no overarching forest

practices legislation in Canada, such as

the United States’ National Forest

Management Act, governing

management of national lands and/or

providing for consideration of wildlife

habitat requirements. Additionally, in

Canada, lynx harvest regulations vary,

being regulated by individual Province

or, in some cases, individual trapping

district.

According to the Vertebrate

Population policy, a population segment

can be considered significant based on

information such as the following: (1)

‘‘Persistence of the discrete population

segment in an ecological setting unusual

or unique for the taxon’’; (2) ‘‘Evidence

that loss of the discrete population

segment would result in a significant

gap in the range of the taxon’’; (3)

‘‘Evidence that the discrete population

segment represents the only surviving

natural occurrence of a taxon that may

be more abundant elsewhere as an

introduced population outside its

historic range;’’ and (4) ‘‘Evidence that

the discrete population segment differs

markedly from other populations of the

species in its genetic characteristics.’’

In a general sense, Canada lynx in the

contiguous United States might be

considered biologically and/or

ecologically significant simply because

they represent the southern extent of the

species’ overall range. There are

climatic and vegetational differences

between Canada lynx habitat in the

contiguous United States and that in

northern latitudes in Canada and Alaska

(Kuchler 1965). In the contiguous

United States, Canada lynx inhabit a

mosaic between boreal forests and

sublpine coniferous forests or northern

hardwoods, whereas in more northern

latitudes, Canada lynx habitat is the

boreal forest ecosystem (Barbour et al.

1980; McCord and Cardoza 1982;

Koehler and Aubry 1994; M. Hunter,

University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994;

Colorado Division of Wildlife et al.

1997) (see Background section).

Canada lynx and snowshoe hare

population dynamics in portions of the

contiguous United States are different

from those in northern Canada.

Historically, Canada lynx and snowshoe

hare populations in some areas of the

contiguous United States have not

exhibited the extreme cyclic population

fluctuations of the northern latitudes for

which Canada lynx are noted (Dolbeer

and Clark 1975; Brittell et al. 1989;

Wolff 1980; Buehler and Keith 1982;

Koehler 1990; Koehler and Aubry 1994)

(see Background section). This less

cyclic population has been attributed to

the lower quality and quantity of

snowshoe hare habitat available in

southern latitudes and/or the presence

of additional snowshoe hare predators

(Buehler and Keith 1982, Wolff 1982 in

Koehler and Aubry 1994, Koehler 1990,

Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Extirpation of the contiguous United

States population of the Canada lynx

would result in a significant gap in the

range of the taxon. Canada lynx would

not only be lost throughout a broad

region of the United States, but a

number of ecosystems would lose a toplevel carnivore from their representative

fauna.

After review and consideration of

Canada lynx status and management in

the contiguous United States and

Canada, contacts with recognized

experts, lynx life history, habitat, and

population dynamics, the Service has

determined that the Canada lynx in the

contiguous United States is discrete and

significant and, therefore, qualifies as a

distinct population segment to be

considered for listing under the Act.

Finding

Based on historic observations,

trapping records and other evidence

available to the Service at this time, the

Service finds that, historically, Canada

lynx were resident in 16 of the

contiguous United States. The overall

numbers and range of Canada lynx in

the contiguous United States are

substantially reduced from historic

levels. Currently, resident populations

of lynx likely exist in Maine, Montana,

Washington, and possibly Minnesota.

States with recent records of individual

lynx sightings, but possibly no longer

sustaining self-supporting populations,

include Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon,

Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.

Lynx may be extirpated from New

Hampshire, Vermont, New York,

Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.

At present, lynx numbers in the

contiguous United States have not

recovered from the overexploitation by

both unregulated and regulated trapping

that occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

As a result, the other threats to the lynx

described earlier under the ‘‘Summary

of Factors Affecting the Species’’ section

have a serious effect on the remaining

population. Where Canada lynx

numbers have been substantially

reduced or extirpated, natural

recolonization of suitable habitat likely
37008 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

will require lynx migration from other

areas in the contiguous United States or

Canada. In Maine, there is evidence that

lynx move back and forth across the

Canadian border, indicating that Maine

lynx habitat is contiguous with

occupied habitat in Quebec and

possibly, New Brunswick (M. Amaral,

in litt. 1998).

Forest management practices that

result in the loss of diverse age

structure, roading, urbanization,

agriculture, recreational developments,

and unnatural fire frequencies have

altered suitable lynx habitat in many

areas throughout the contiguous United

States. As a result, many states may

have insufficient habitat quality and/or

quantity to sustain lynx or their prey.

The likelihood of lynx encountering

people has dramatically increased over

the last few decades as a result of

elevated levels of human access into

lynx habitat. Roads and trails,

snowmobiles, offroad vehicles, and ski

area developments enable human access

into historically remote forests, thereby

increasing the likelihood of lynx being

displaced from otherwise suitable

habitats and increasing the vulnerability

of lynx to human-induced mortality.

Although the legal taking of lynx is

highly restricted in the contiguous

United States, existing regulatory

mechanisms may be inadequate to

protect the small, remnant lynx

populations or to conserve Canada lynx

habitat.

The cumulative effect of these habitat

changes has been the creation of

habitats and prey bases that are better

able to support lynx competitors, such

as bobcats and coyotes, rather than lynx.

Bobcats are able to outcompete lynx

except in habitats with excessive snow

depths. Roads and packed snow trails

have allowed bobcats and coyotes to

access the winter habitats for which

lynx are highly specialized.

Recently, some States, Federal

agencies, and other entities have

initiated survey and research efforts to

better evaluate the status of the Canada

lynx within the contiguous United

States. Additionally, some States such

as Washington, Colorado, and Idaho are

in the process of developing strategies to

conserve and restore lynx in their states.

Resident lynx populations still occur

in Montana, Washington, Maine and,

possibly, Minnesota. According to

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks,

Montana’s lynx numbers are fairly

stable. Therefore, the Service concludes

that a designation as threatened is

appropriate. A threatened species is

defined in the Act as a species likely to

become an endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or

a significant portion of its range.

Based on the preceding discussions

and analyses, using the best available

scientific and commercial information

available, the Service finds that listing

of the Canada lynx within the

contiguous United States is warranted.

The Service proposes to list the

contiguous United States Canada lynx

population segment (consisting of the

States of Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin,

Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho,

Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and

Colorado) as threatened.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section

3(5)(a) of the Act as— (i) the specific

areas within the geographical area

occupied by a species, at the time it is

listed in accordance with the Act, on

which are found those physical or

biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) that

may require special management

considerations or protection and; (ii)

specific areas outside the geographical

area occupied by a species at the time

it is listed, upon a determination that

such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species. The term

‘‘conservation’’ as defined in section

3(3) of the Act means ‘‘to use and the

use of all methods and procedures

necessary to bring any endangered or

threatened species to the point at which

the measures provided pursuant to this

Act are no longer necessary,’’ i.e., the

species is recovered and can be removed

from the list of endangered and

threatened species.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate

critical habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. The Service finds that

designation of critical habitat is not

prudent for the Canada lynx at this time.

Service regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of

critical habitat is not prudent when one

or both of the following situations

exist—(1) the species is threatened by

taking or other human activity, and

identification of critical habitat can be

expected to increase the degree of threat

to the species, or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species.

In accordance with the definition of

critical habitat provided by section

3(5)(A)(I) of the Act, the Service’s

regulations require the Service to

consider those physical and biological

features that are essential to the

conservation of the species and that may

require special management

considerations or protection. Such

requirements include, but are not

limited to—(1) space for individual and

population growth, and for normal

behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,

minerals, or other nutritional or

physiological requirements; (3) cover or

shelter; (4) sites for breeding,

reproduction, rearing of offspring,

germination, or seed dispersal; and,

generally, (5) habitats that are protected

from disturbance or are representative of

the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

Potential benefits of critical habitat

designation derive from section 7(a)(2)

of the Act, which requires Federal

agencies, in consultation with the

Service, to ensure that their actions are

not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of listed species or to result in

the destruction or adverse modification

of critical habitat of such species.

Critical habitat, by definition, applies

only to Federal agency actions. The 50

CFR 402.02 defines ‘‘jeopardize the

continued existence of’’ as meaning to

engage in an action that would

reasonably be expected, directly or

indirectly, to reduce appreciably the

likelihood of both the survival and

recovery of a listed species in the wild

by reducing the reproduction, numbers,

or distribution of that species.

‘‘Destruction or adverse modification’’ is

defined as a direct or indirect alteration

that appreciably diminishes the value of

critical habitat for both the survival and

recovery of a listed species. Such

alterations include, but are not limited

to, alterations adversely modifying any

of those physical or biological features

that were the basis for determining the

habitat to be critical. Thus, in the

section 7(a)(2) consultation process, the

jeopardy analysis focuses on potential

effects on the species’ populations,

whereas the destruction or adverse

modification analysis focuses on habitat

value.

Common to both a jeopardy and the

destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat is the requirement that

the Service find an appreciable effect on

both the species’ survival and recovery.

This is in contrast to the public

perception that the adverse modification

standard sets a lower threshold for

violation of section 7 than that for

jeopardy. Thus, Federal actions

satisfying the standard for adverse

modification are nearly always found to

also jeopardize the species concerned,

and the existence of critical habitat

designation does not materially affect
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37009

the outcome of consultation. Biological

opinions that conclude that a Federal

agency action is likely to adversely

modify critical habitat but is not likely

to jeopardize the species for which it is

designated are extremely rare

historically; none have been issued in

recent years. Thus, the Service believes

that, from a section 7 consultation

perspective, no additional conservation

benefit would be achieved for the

contiguous United States Canada lynx

population by the designation of critical

habitat.

Currently, in the contiguous United

States, legal harvest of lynx is not a

threat to the population because all

States, except Montana, have closed

seasons on the harvest of lynx. Montana

has an extremely low quota, allowing

two lynx to be harvested per season.

Additionally, current prices for lynx

pelts are relatively low so there is little

incentive to trap lynx. However, should

pelt prices increase again in the future,

there will be strong incentive to trap

lynx as evidenced by trapping records

from the 1970’s and 1980’s (see Factor

B, above). Designation of critical habitat

would increase the vulnerability of lynx

to poaching; therefore, the Service

concludes it would not be prudent to

designate critical habitat.

In the contiguous United States,

Canada lynx inhabit a mosaic between

boreal forests and subalpine coniferous

forests or northern hardwoods, as

described earlier in the Background

section. Canada lynx are highly

dependent on snowshoe hares to supply

an adequate food source. Canada lynx

concentrate their foraging activities in

areas where hare activity is high.

Snowshoe hares prefer structurally

diverse forests, often early successional

stages, with stands of conifers and

shrubby understories that provide for

feeding, escape from predators, and

protection during extreme weather. For

denning, it is believed Canada lynx

require late successional forests that

provide downed logs and windfalls for

cover. Additionally, Canada lynx are

highly mobile and can move long

distances in search of prey (see

Background section, above). Home range

sizes vary widely (12 to 243 sq km (5–

94 sq mi) depending primarily on the

density of lynx and availability of prey

in an area. For example, the estimated

range of one male lynx would

encompass all protected lands in the

White Mountain National Forest in New

Hampshire and Maine (Brocke et al.

1993).

The Service concludes it would not be

beneficial to designate specific

geographic locations as critical habitat

because snowshoe hare habitat and lynx

denning habitat will always shift

spatially and temporally across the

landscape as a result of natural (e.g.,

fire, forest maturation, seasonal) and

human-caused changes (e.g., logging,

thinning). Canada lynx would

reasonably be expected to relocate in

response to the natural dynamics of

lynx population levels, prey availability,

and habitat conditions, thereby making

little use of specific areas designated as

critical habitat.

Attempting to encompass lynx

movements or the spatial shifts in lynx

foraging or denning habitat that will

occur over time by designating critical

habitat on a large-scale (e.g., an entire

national forest or wilderness area)

would not be beneficial to the species.

Under such a designation, it would be

impracticable to assert that a single

Federal action would appreciably

diminish the value of critical habitat for

both the survival and recovery of a

listed species or that the entire

expansive area requires special

management or protection (the purpose

of a critical habitat designation) for

lynx. Additionally, Forest Plans that

dictate how an entire national forest

would be managed are already subject to

review under section 7.

A large-scale designation would be

over inclusive because it would contain

many areas that never were or will be

lynx habitat and areas that, although

they may be used by lynx, would not

require special management or

protection for lynx. For example, in

1994, nearly 60 percent of the

approximately 17 million acres of

national forests in Montana were

classified as roadless or designated

wilderness areas (J. Gatchell, Montana

Wilderness Association, pers. comm.

1994). However, a large proportion of

these areas are not suitable lynx habitat

because they consist of rock- and icecovered mountaintops.

A substantial amount of Federal land

exists in the Western and Great Lakes

regions of the contiguous United States

lynx population segment in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,

Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota,

Wisconsin, and Michigan. Actions on

these Federal lands are ensured of the

benefit of review under section 7 of the

Act, regardless of whether or not critical

habitat is designated. Potential and

occupied Canada lynx habitat exists

primarily on Federal lands managed by

the U.S. Forest Service. Additional

Federal land managers include but are

not limited to the National Park Service

and Bureau of Land Management.

Currently, the U.S. Forest Service,

Bureau of Land Management, and the

Service are developing a section 7

conferencing and consultation strategy

to conserve lynx on the 56 National

Forests and numerous Bureau of Land

Management districts within its historic

range in the contiguous United States

(B. Ruediger, in litt. 1998).

Designation of critical habitat

provides no limitations or constraints

on private landowners if there is no

Federal involvement and, as such,

provides the species no conservation

benefit. The amount of Federal land in

the northeastern United States range of

the lynx is small (primarily the White

Mountain and Green Mountain National

Forests in parts of Vermont, New

Hampshire, and Maine) compared to the

amount of non-Federal land. Because

few Federal actions occur in the

northeastern United States range of the

lynx, project review under section 7 of

the Act would be rarely required (M.

Amaral, pers. comm. 1998).

In the Rocky Mountain/Cascades,

Great Lakes, and Northeast regions of

the lynx range, there are large parcels of

land in corporate ownership. Actions on

these lands will either have no Federal

nexus or will require review under

section 7 of the Act.

Protection of lynx habitat can be

addressed in habitat conservation plans

voluntarily developed by landowners

under the section 10 permitting process.

In the State of Washington, Canada lynx

are covered under a multispecies

Habitat Conservation Plan on forest

lands owned by Plum Creek Timber

Company in the central Cascades

mountain range.

Therefore, because of the increased

vulnerability of the lynx, the spatial and

temporal changes in lynx foraging and

denning habitats, the high mobility of

individual lynx, the inability to control

lynx habitat in Canada, and the fact that

designation of critical habitat would

provide little different or greater benefit

than that provided by the jeopardy

standard under section 7 regulations,

the Service has determined that the

designation of critical habitat for the

contiguous United States population of

the Canada lynx is not prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain practices.

Recognition through listing results in

public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires
37010 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

that recovery actions be carried out for

all listed species. The protection

required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against taking and harm are

discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that

is proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal

agencies to confer with the Service on

any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a species

proposed for listing or result in

destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species or

destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into formal consultation with the

Service.

The contiguous United States

population of the Canada lynx occurs on

lands administered by the U.S. Forest

Service, National Park Service, Bureau

of Land Management; Tribal lands, State

lands, and private lands. Examples of

Federal agency actions that may require

conference and/or consultation as

described in the preceding paragraph

include timber, silviculture/thinning,

road construction, fire, and recreation

management activities or plans by the

Forest Service, Bureau of Land

Management, and National Park Service;

Federal highway projects, and U.S.

Housing and Urban Development

projects.

The Act and implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all threatened wildlife. The

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21

and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any

person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to take (includes harass,

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,

trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any

of these), import or export, ship in

interstate commerce in the course of

commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It also is illegal to

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or

ship any such wildlife that has been

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply

to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered or threatened

wildlife under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are

codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits

are available for scientific purposes, to

enhance the propagation or survival of

the species, and/or for incidental take in

the course of otherwise lawful activities.

For threatened species, permits also are

available for zoological exhibition,

educational purposes, or special

purposes consistent with the purposes

of the Act. Regulations governing

permits for species listed as threatened

due to similarity of appearance are

codified at 50 CFR 17.52 and regulation

implementing CITES are codified at 50

CFR part 23.

It is the policy of the Service (59 FR

34272; July 1, 1994) to identify to the

maximum extent practicable at the time

a species is listed those activities that

would or would not constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act. The

intent of this policy is to increase public

awareness of the effect of this listing on

proposed and ongoing activities within

the species’ range.

For the contiguous United States

population of the Canada lynx, the

Service believes the following actions

would not likely result in a violation of

section 9:

(1) Actions that may affect Canada

lynx in the contiguous United States

that are authorized, funded or carried

out by a Federal agency when the action

is conducted in accordance with an

incidental take statement issued by the

Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act;

(2) Actions that may result in take of

Canada lynx in the contiguous United

States when the action is conducted in

accordance with a permit under section

10 of the Act; For the contiguous United

States population of the Canada lynx,

the following actions likely would be

considered a violation of section 9:

(1) Actions that take Canada lynx that

are not authorized by either a permit

under section 10 of the Act, or an

incidental take permit under section 7

of the Act; the term ‘‘take’’ includes

harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting,

shooting, wounding, killing, trapping,

capturing, or collecting, or attempting

any of these actions;

(2) Possess, sell, deliver, carry,

transport, or ship illegally taken Canada

lynx;

(3) Interstate and foreign commerce

(commerce across State and

international boundaries) without the

appropriate permits under section

10(a)(1)(a), 50 CFR 17.32 and/or CITES.

(4) Significant lynx habitat

modification or degradation, including

but not limited to forest management

(e.g., logging, road construction and

maintenance, prescribed fire), and

recreational, urban, or agricultural

development, to the point that it results

in death or injury by significantly

impairing essential behavioral patterns,

including breeding, feeding, or

sheltering.

Requests for copies of the regulations

regarding listed wildlife and inquiries

about prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal

Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.

Special Rule

The implementing regulations for

threatened wildlife under the Act

incorporate the section 9 prohibitions

for endangered wildlife (50 CFR 17.31),

except when a special rule promulgated

pursuant to section 4(d) applies (50 CFR

17.31(c)). Section 4(d) of the Act

provides that whenever a species is

listed as a threatened species, the

Service shall issue regulations deemed

necessary and advisable to provide for

the conservation of the species.

Conservation means the use of all

methods and procedures necessary to

bring the species to the point at which

the protections of the Act are no longer

necessary. Section 4(d) also states that

the Service may, by regulation, extend

to threatened species, prohibitions

provided for endangered species under

Section 9.

This special rule will provide for the

take of captive-bred Canada lynx

without permit, allow the continuation

of the export of captive-bred Canada

lynx under CITES export permits, and

provide for the transportation of lynx

skins in commerce within the United

States. The export of properly tagged

(with valid CITES export tag) skins from

lynx documented as captive-bred will

be permitted in accordance with part 23

of this chapter. Properly tagged skins

may be transported in interstate trade

without permits otherwise required

under part 17.32.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final

action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as

possible. Therefore, comments, or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule are hereby solicited.

Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or

other relevant data concerning any

threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37011

(2) Additional information concerning

the range, distribution, and population

size of the species;

(3) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on this species;

(4) Additional information pertaining

to the promulgation of a special rule to

provide States and Tribes the

opportunity to maintain the lead role in

protection, management, and recovery

of the species through the voluntary

development and implementation of a

conservation plan. Such conservation

plans would address activities having

the potential to adversely impact lynx or

lynx habitat, including activities that

may result in the take of lynx incidental

to otherwise lawful activities;

provisions to avoid and minimize those

impacts; and existing or planned

conservation measures that will be

implemented to result in a net recovery

benefit for lynx. Potential activities to be

addressed in such a plan may include

trapping and hunting programs that

target species other than lynx; forest

management; road construction,

maintenance and use; and recreational

development. Approved conservation

plans would authorize the non

deliberate or non purposeful take of

lynx incidental to otherwise lawful

State or Tribal activities.

The final decision on this proposal

will take into consideration the

comments and any additional

information received by the Service, and

such communications may lead to a

final regulation that differs from this

proposal.

The Act provides for at least one

public hearing on this proposal, if

requested. However, given the high

likelihood of several requests

throughout the species’ range, the

Service has scheduled hearings in

advance of any request. For additional

information on public hearings, see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

Similarity of Appearance

Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the

treatment of a species (or subspecies or

population segment) as an endangered

or threatened species even though it is

not otherwise listed as endangered or

threatened if: (a) The species so closely

resembles in appearance an endangered

or threatened species that enforcement

personnel would have substantial

difficulty in differentiating between

listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect

of this substantial difficulty is an

additional threat to the endangered or

threatened species; and (c) that such

treatment will substantially facilitate the

enforcement and further the policy of

the Act.

The Canada lynx is included in

Appendix II of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES). CITES is an international treaty

that regulates international trade in

certain animal and plant species.

Exports of animals and plants listed on

CITES Appendix II as a similarity of

appearance species may occur only if

the Scientific Authority has advised the

Management Authority that such

exports will not be detrimental to the

survival of the look alike species, and if

the Management Authority is satisfied

that the animals or plants were not

obtained in violation of laws for their

protection. The Canada lynx was

included in CITES Appendix II on

February 4, 1977, as a part of the listing

of all Felidae that were not already

included in the appendices. A CITES

export permit pursuant to 50 CFR part

23 must be issued by the exporting

country before an Appendix II species

may be shipped. All Felidae were

included in Appendix II to enable better

protection of look alike species that

were or could be threatened with

extinction without strict regulation of

trade. After inclusion of the lynx (as

well as the bobcat and river otter) in

CITES Appendix II, the Service worked

with the States to develop guidelines for

State programs that would provide the

information needed to satisfy CITES

export requirements. Under the State

CITES export programs, all skins to be

exported are required to be tagged with

a permanently attached, serially

numbered tag that identified the

species, State of origin, and season of

taking. The tags are provided to the

States by the Service. The States that

were approved for export of lynx are

Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and

Washington. Canada lynx in Alaska are

not encompassed by this listing, all

existing CITES requirements remaining

the same. Of the 48 contiguous States,

Montana is the only State that still has

a wild lynx harvest with a quota of two.

Currently there are facilities in Idaho,

Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and

Utah that raise captive-bred Canada

lynx for commercial purposes. At least

some of the farms report that their

initial stock was obtained from Canada.

From 1992 through 1997, Minnesota

and Montana reported that a total of 139

lynx pelts were tagged for export under

the CITES program and these primarily

originated from farmed animals. The

Service currently has an application

pending for the export of 254 captivebred lynx from Utah. These captive-bred

specimens have neither a positive or

negative effect on the species in the

wild.

Current prices for lynx pelts are

relatively low so there is little present

incentive to trap lynx. However, should

pelt prices increase again in the future,

there could be strong incentive to trap

wild lynx and export their pelts. Lynx

are easy to trap and the illegal take of

lynx may present an enforcement and

inspection problem for Service

personnel. Captive-bred Canada lynx

cannot be effectively differentiated from

wild Canada lynx by Service law

enforcement and inspection personnel

without proper tagging. For these

reasons, the Service is listing the captive

populations of Canada lynx within the

United States as threatened due to

similarity of appearance. However,

under the latitude for threatened species

afforded by the Act and 50 CFR 17.31(c)

the Service is proposing to issue permits

for captive-bred Canada lynx to

facilitate the lawful export of Canada

lynx. The listing of the captive

populations of Canada lynx within the

United States as threatened due to

similarity of appearance eliminates the

ability of persons to misrepresent

illegally taken wild Canada lynx as

captive-bred Canada lynx for

commercial purposes.

This proposed rule would, in addition

to the export under 50 CFR part 23 of

live captive-bred Canada lynx, allow the

export of skins derived from captivebred populations of Canada lynx if the

specimens are tagged with a CITES

export tag and accompanied by a valid

CITES export permit. The import of

lawfully obtained Canada lynx pelts

originating in the nation of Canada

would continue to require the necessary

CITES export permits, but no additional

Endangered Species Act import permit

would be required. Interstate transport

and/or commerce in skins that are

properly tagged with valid CITES export

tags would be allowed without permits

otherwise required under 50 CFR 17.32.

The export or interstate transport of

skins of Canada lynx taken incidental to

otherwise lawful trapping for species

other than Canada lynx will not be

permitted under the special rule. The

import of live specimens would require

permits under the Act.

Regulations implementing the

Endangered Species Act are set forth at

50 CFR part 17. Any person intending

to engage in an activity for which a

permit is required such as exporting

lawfully obtained Canada lynx must,

before commencing such activity, obtain

a valid permit authorizing such activity.

Permit requirements for threatened

species are set forth at 50 CFR 17.31 and

17.32. Permit requirements for species
37012 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

listed by similarity of appearance are set

forth at 50 CFR 17.52, with exceptions

to permit requirements provided by

special rule as proposed herein. The

Service’s general permit procedures are

set forth at 50 CFR part 13. Uniform

rules and procedures for the

importation, exportation and

transportation of wildlife are set forth at

50 CFR part 14.

In summary, CITES/Endangered

Species Act permits will be required for

U.S. captive-bred lynx being sold

abroad. No U.S. Fish and Wildlife

permits will be required for the

importation of lynx products into the

U.S., and permits will not be required

for interstate transport and commerce in

skins that are properly tagged with valid

CITES export tags.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact

Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Act. A notice outlining the Service’s

reasons for this determination was

published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this

regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to

contain no information collection

requirements for which Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approval is required. Persons exporting

captive-bred Canada lynx may continue

to obtain permits which are already

authorized under 50 CFR part 23 as

approved by OMB and assigned

clearance number 1018–0022.

The Service invites comments on the

anticipated direct and indirect costs and

benefits or cost savings associated with

the special rule for the captive Canada

lynx population. In particular the

Service is interested in obtaining

information on any significant economic

impacts of the proposed rule on small

public and private entities. Once we

have reviewed the available

information, we will prepare an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis for the

special rule and make this available for

public review. This analysis will be

revised as appropriate and incorporated

into the record of compliance (ROC)

certifying that the special rule complies

with the various applicable statutory,

Executive Order, and Departmental

Manual requirements. Pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act, the ROC is not

applicable to the listing of the Canada

lynx. In accordance with the criteria in

Executive Order 12866, neither the

listing nor the special rule are

significant regulatory actions subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein, as well as others, is available

upon request from the Montana Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this document

is Lori H. Nordstrom, Montana Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

proposes to amend Part 17, Subchapter

B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the U.S. Code

of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend 17.11(h) by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under

‘‘MAMMALS,’’ to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to

read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

MAMMALS

* * * * * * *

Lynx, Canada .... Lynx

canadensis.

USA (WA, OR, WA, OR,

ID, MT, ID, MT, UT,

UT, WY, CO, MN,

WY, CO, MN, WI, MI,

ME, VT, WI, MI, ME,

NH, NY, MA, VT, NH,

NY, PA, MA, PA, AK),

Canada.

(Unless bred in captivity) T N/A N/A

Do ..................... ......do ............... ......do ............................. All captive animals within the coterminous

U.S.A. (lower 48

States), activities as

prohibited or allowed

under 17.31, 17.32,

17.40(k), 17.52, and

part 23.

T(S/A) N/A 17.40(k)

* * * * * * *

3. Amend § 17.40 by adding

paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 17.40 Special rules—mammals.

* * * * *

(k) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)

population—(1) Prohibitions. (i) Except

as noted in paragraph (k)(2) of this
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 130 /Wednesday, July 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37013

section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31

and exemptions of 50 CFR 17.32 and

17.52 apply to the captive Canada lynx

population within the coterminous

United States (lower 48 States).

(2) Exceptions. (i) The Service may

issue incidental take permits or permits

authorizing activities that would

otherwise be unlawful under paragraph

(k)(1) of this section for education

purposes, scientific purposes, the

enhancement or propagation for

survival of Canada lynx, zoological

exhibition, and other conservation

purposes consistent with the Act in

accordance with 50 CFR 17.52 and

pursuant to a section 6 cooperative

agreement with a State, if applicable.

(ii) No permit will be required for

taking of lawfully obtain captive-bred

lynx. The Service may issue CITES

export permits for captive-bred Canada

lynx and properly tagged captive-bred

Canada lynx skins in accordance with

50 CFR part 23. Interstate transport and

or commerce in skins that are properly

tagged with a valid CITES export tag

would be allowed without a permit. The

export or interstate transport of skins of

Canada lynx taken incidental to

otherwise lawful trapping for species

other than Canada lynx will not be

permitted.

Dated: June 26, 1998.

Donald Barry,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife

and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98–17771 Filed 6–30–98; 11:22 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P